Wetlands International South Asia

A-25, Second Floor, Defence Colony

New Delhi-110 024, India

Tel: +91-11-24338906, 46038906

Email: wi.southasia@wi-sa.orgURL: http://south-asia.wetlands.org

Wetlands International

@WetlandsInt

Wetlands International

Stay in touch

Natural Capital of Wetlands

Ministry of Environment, Forestand Climate ChangeGovernment of India

Natural Capital of Wetlands

Synthesis of the Wetlands Thematic Area of TII (The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity India Initiative)

Supported by

Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change, Government of India

Indo-German Biodiversity Programme, Deutsche Gesellschaft für Internationale Zusammenarbeit (GIZ) GmbH, India

Authors

Ritesh Kumar, Conservation Programme Manager, Wetlands International South Asia

J.R. Bhatt, Advisor, Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change

S. Goel, Technical Expert, GIZ India

Case Study Contributors

Ashtamudi Lake: K. Sunil Mohamed, Central Marine Fisheries Research Institute

Kanwar Jheel: Ritesh Kumar and Kalpana Ambastha, Wetlands International South Asia

Ken River: Brij Gopal and D.K. Marothia, Center for Inland Waters in South Asia

Lake Chilika: Ritesh Kumar, Satish Kumar and Anita Chakraborty, Wetlands International South Asia

Little Rann of Kachchh: A.M. Dixit, Center for Environment and Social Concerns

Loktak Lake: Ritesh Kumar and Akoijam Yaiphaba Meetei, Wetlands International South Asia

Gujarat Mangroves: Saudamini Das, Institute of Economic Growth

Ousteri Lake: L. Venkatachalam and Zareena Begum, Madras Institute of Development Studies

and Madras School of Economics

Wular Lake: Rahul Kaul, Wildlife Trust of India

Reviewers

Y. S. Yadava (Bay of Bengal Programme - Inter Governmental Organisation)

A. K. Bhatnagar (University of Delhi)

Published by

Wetlands International South Asia, New Delhi, India

ISBN

81-87408-06-5

Suggested Citation

Kumar, R., Bhatt, J. R. and Goel, S., 2017. . New Delhi:

Wetlands International South Asia. p. 45.

Photo credits

WISA Photo Library: Front cover (Fishers in Lake Chilika, Odisha); Back cover (Flamingoes in Nalaban, Chilika, Odisha)

Disclaimer

The views expressed in this synthesis are purely those of the authors and may not in any circumstances

be regarded as stating an official position of the Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change

(MoEFCC), GIZ India or Wetlands International South Asia. The designation of geographical entities

in this synthesis, and presentation of the material, do not imply the expression of any opinion

whatsoever on the part of MoEFCC, GIZ India or Wetlands International South Asia

concerning the legal status of any country, territory, or area, or of its authorities,

or concerning the delimitation of its frontiers or boundaries.

Natural Capital of Wetlands

Natural Capital of WetlandsSynthesis of the Wetlands Thematic Area of TII (The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity India Initiative)

January 2017

Water is life, and wetlands are the life support systems that ensure optimal functioning of water cycle. India is endowed by a rich diversity of wetlands, ranging from high altitude wetlands of Himalayas, floodplains of mighty rivers such as the Ganga and Brahmaputra, lagoons and mangrove marshes on the coastline and reefs in the marine environment.

Despite their tremendous value, wetlands are also one of the most rapidly degrading ecosystems. At the crux of wetland degradation is limited consideration in developmental programming, for the value of their wide-ranging ecosystem services and biodiversity. While the more tangible provisioning services of wetlands are well recognized, the relatively intangible services such as regulating functions of wetlands are seldom recognized. The lop-sided developmental programming, therefore, creates a range of drivers and pressures on fragile wetland ecosystems.

The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity – India Initiative (TII) was launched by our Ministry with the support of the German Federal Ministry for Economic Cooperation and Development (BMZ). This was done aiming at highlighting the economic consequences of biodiversity loss and associated decline in ecosystem services. TII has focused on inland wetlands, forests and coastal and marine ecosystems. Economic valuation tools have been applied to make the values of these ecosystems explicit in economic terms, and to help develop strategies for mainstreaming these values in broader developmental programming.

Valuation is an important means of expressing linkages of human societies with natural resources, their ecosystem services and biodiversity. It provides a tool for self-reflection, alerting us to the consequences of our choices and behaviour on various dimensions of both human and natural capital.

I am pleased to observe that TII has supported nine pilot projects wherein wetland ecosystem services were assessed and recommendations for conservation and wise use derived. The results of the pilot studies have been synthesized in the form of a report for the use of conservation planners and decision makers.

I congratulate the study team for undertaking this important endeavour.

Date: 19-1-2017 Place: Delhi

FOREWORDWetland ecosystems play a critical role in ensuring our food, water and climate security. Wetlands help stabilize water supplies, cleanse polluted waters, protect shorelines, recharge groundwater, store carbon and provide buffer against extreme events. Yet, these ecosystems are under threat from a number of anthropogenic and non-anthropogenic drivers and pressures, thereby undermining their wide ranging ecosystem services and biodiversity values. Degradation and loss of wetlands have distinct economic consequences which are unfortunately underestimated leading to less than satisfactory conservation of these important ecosystems.

The TII (The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity – India Initiative) was launched by the Ministry of Environment, Forest & Climate Change in 2011 as an effort to highlight the economic consequences of loss of our biological diversity and ecosystem services. TII envisioned mainstreaming ecosystem services and biodiversity values in developmental programming being pursued within states and at national level. The focus of TII was on three priority ecosystems: wetlands, coastal and marine, and forest ecosystems

The TII, in variance with similar initiatives being undertaken in other countries, has used an evidence building approach in the form of pilot projects to highlight pathways for using economic arguments to address policy issues related with conservation and wise use of wetlands. Within nine wetland sites, multidisciplinary teams have looked into the ways in which ecosystem services and biodiversity values could be used to address policy issues related to wetland restoration, land use planning and regulation, integrated water resources management, property rights and distribution of costs and benefits, role of market based instruments, and financing. The outputs of these pilot projects have been placed in the national context in the form of a sectoral synthesis report.

I would like to thank Dr. Amita Prasad (Additional Secretary, MoEFCC), the Federal Ministry for Economic Cooperation and Development (BMZ), Government of the Federal Republic of Germany and the Deutsche Gesellschaft für Internationale Zusammenarbeit (GIZ) GmbH for their support to the TII process. I put on record my appreciation for the time and effort of the Scientific and Technical Advisory Group (under Chairmanship of Dr Kirit Parikh) in providing strategic guidance to the initiative and ensuring policy connect in the pilot projects. I congratulate the synthesis lead authors, Dr. Ritesh Kumar (Wetlands International South Asia), Mr. Shantanu Goel (GIZ) and Dr. J.R. Bhatt (Advisor, MoEFCC) for cogently analyzing each of the pilot project outcomes in the context of overall management challenges faced in planning for wetland conservation and wise use in the country. I also congratulate all the contributing authors for implementing pilot projects and developing specific recommendations for improving integration of wetland biodiversity and ecosystem services values in planning and decision making at various levels.

I hope that the findings of TII will be used to strengthen delivery of national and state level programmes for conserving wetlands.

Date: 25-1-2017 Place: Delhi (A.N. Jha)

Contents

1. Introduction .............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................1

Purpose and scope..........................................................................................................................................................................................................................1

Structure ......................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................3

2. Wetlands in India ..............................................................................................................................................................................................................................4

Wetlands: Biodiversity and ecosystem services values .......................................................................................................................4

Status and trends ..............................................................................................................................................................................................................................6

Conservationandmanagementefforts ...............................................................................................................................................................10

Gaps and challenges .................................................................................................................................................................................................................12

3. Recognizing economic values of wetland biodiversity and ecosystem services ............................................13

Economic values and wise use ....................................................................................................................................................................................13

Economic valuation of wetland ecosystem services: State-of-the-art ............................................................................14

Gaps and challenges .................................................................................................................................................................................................................18

Relevance of Tii for wetland management .....................................................................................................................................................19

4. Integrating value of wetlands in planning and decision-making ......................................................................................21

Land use planning and regulation ............................................................................................................................................................................27

Wetlands and integrated water resources management ................................................................................................................30

Property rightsand improvingdistributionof costsandbenefits .....................................................................................33

Market-based instruments and wise use ..........................................................................................................................................................35

Financing .................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................38

5. Conclusions and Recommendations ......................................................................................................................................................................39

References .............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................43

1. Introduction

Purpose and scope

Wetlands underpin societal well-being in a number of ways, yet are under threat from a range of anthropogenic, and non-anthropogenic drivers and pressures. As public goods, a large category of wetland ecosystem services and biodiversity values are not factored in decision-making, thereby resulting in wetlands being converted for alternate uses. The resultant losses in ecosystem services and biodiversity have direct economic consequences, which are unfortunately underestimated. Making the value of wetlands visible to society creates an evidence base for more targetedandcost-effective solutions tosecure continued functioning of these ecosystems.

The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity - india initiative (Tii) was launched in 2010 by the Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change, (the then Ministry of Environment and Forests) Government of india (MoEFCC, Goi) to highlight economic consequences of loss of biological diversity and decline in ecosystem services. The initiative envisioned mainstreaming of ecosystem services and biodiversity values in developmental programming using an evidence building approach for three ecosystem types, namely inland wetlands, forests and coastal and marine ecosystems. implementation of Tii was led by MoEFCC in collaboration with the Deutsche Gesellschaft für internationale Zusammenarbeit (GiZ) Gmbh under indo-German Development Cooperation.

Tii was structured on the lines of international TEEB (The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity). Initiated in2007by theG8andfivemajordeveloping economies (india, Brazil, China, Mexico and South Africa), the international TEEB study compiled and presented a compelling case for the economic basis for conservation of ecosystems and biodiversity. TEEB aimed at analyzing the globaleconomicbenefitsofbiologicaldiversity,the costs of the loss of biodiversity, and the failure to take protective measures versus the costs of

• Wetlandsunderpin societalwell-being through theirwide ranging ecosystem services and biodiversity values, yet continue to be under threat from a number of natural and human induced drivers and pressures.

• Making thevalueofwetlandsvisible to societycreatesanevidencebase formore targetedandcost-effectivemanagement solutions.

• TIIusesanevidencebuildingapproach fordemonstrating the use of economic approaches for mainstreaming wetland ecosystem services and biodiversity values in development programming.

1

Flamingoes at Flamingo City, Anda Bet, Kachchh, Gujarat

Late

Ash

win

Pom

al

effectiveconservation. Thestudy recommendeda structured approach for valuation in order to help decision-makers recognize the wide range of benefitsprovidedbyecosystemsandbiodiversity,demonstrate their values in economic terms and, where appropriate, suggest how to capture those values in decision-making (TEEB, 2010).

TEEB outcomes contribute to several international processes and commitments, in particular the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) Strategic Plan for Biodiversity 2011-2020, which recognizes the importance of economic valuation of biodiversity for “addressing the underlying causes of biodiversity loss by mainstreaming biodiversity across government and society” (Strategic Goal A). The following three Targets under Strategic Goal A deservespecificmention:

Target 1: By 2020, at the latest, people are aware of the values of biodiversity and the steps they can take to conserve and use it sustainably.

Target 2: By 2020, at the latest, biodiversity values have been integrated into national and local development and poverty reduction strategies and planning processes and are being incorporated into national accounting, as appropriate, and reporting systems.

Target 3: By 2020, at the latest, incentives, including subsidies, harmful to biodiversity are eliminated, phased out or reformed in order to minimize or avoid negative impacts, and positive incentives for the conservation and sustainable

use of biodiversity are developed and applied, consistent and in harmony with the Convention and other relevant international obligations, taking into account national socio-economic conditions.

While adopting the international TEEB approach, Tii implementation was based on evidence building pilots for the three ecosystem types, namely forests, wetlands and coastal and marine ecosystems.Pilotprojectswerecommissioned for14 sites in order to assess feasibility of application of economic approaches for addressing policy issues related to management of three ecosystems. Nine of the 14 study sites addressed policy dimensions related to wetland conservation and wise use.

Tii implementation was structured in three phases. in its scoping phase implemented during March – September 2011, status and trends for each of the three prioritized ecosystems were assessed using existing information. This review was used to identify specificcontexts inwhicheconomicsbased approaches can be applied to support wetland conservation and wise use. The scoping phase was followed by a demonstration phase (January2014– June2015)whereinpilotprojectswere implemented. The study sites were selected based on an open call for proposals on themes emerging from the scoping phase. in the third and final stage, a sectoral synthesiswasdevelopedrelating the outcomes of scoping phase with the knowledge base on ecosystem services and biodiversityvaluesgenerated frompilotprojects.

• Statusand trends• Threats• Stateofart in recognition

of ES values• Policycontexts foruseof

economic approaches

Scoping

• Recommendations formainstreaming ES values in decision making

Synthesis

• RecognizingESvalues• Demonstratingvalues• Usingeconomic

approaches to address tradeoffs

Pilotprojects

Fig 1: Phasing of TII implementation

2

TheScientificandTechnicalAdvisoryGroup(STAG) and Steering Committee of Tii provided the overarching technical guidance in the three phases of the study. The studies were conducted by respective proponent organizations, with Wetlands international South Asia entrusted the task of developinga synthesis, catering to specificneedsof MoEFCC, wetland managers within respective states and other related stakeholders.

During the Xi Conference of Parties (CoP) of the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) hosted by India inOctober2010, thefirst reportof theinitiative, entitled 'TEEB – india: initial Assessment and Scoping Report – Working Document' was released, containing the outputs of scoping studies commissioned for the three priority ecosystems (Parikh et al., 2012). This was followed with an interim report 'The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity - india initiative: interim Report – Working Document' elaborating the study approach and method (MoEFCC and GiZ, 2014). The present report synthesizes the knowledge base developed under the initiative and outputs of the pilot projects to recommendmeasures forapplyingeconomic approaches for conservation and wise use of wetlands in india. The scope of this report includes the following:

• Statusand trendsofwetlandsextent,ecosystem services and biodiversity;

• Overviewofkey threatsandmanagementissues that impact wetland biodiversity and ecosystem services;

• Illustrationofecological, economicandinstitutional impacts of loss of ecosystem services and biological diversity through case studies;

• Potential relevanceofeconomicsbasedapproaches for strengthening conservation and sustainable management of wetlands;

• Overviewofexistingevidenceoneconomicvalues of wetlands, and application in policy and decision-making; and

• Recommendations for integrationofecosystemservice and biological diversity values to help improve conservation and wise use of wetlands

Structure

Thesynthesis report ispresented infivesections.Following a context setting introduction, section 2 outlines the status, trends and key management challenges facing wetlands of india. Section 3 summarizes the need for and the state-of-the-art of valuation of wetland ecosystem services in india. Section 4 summarizes the outputs from thepilotprojects. Section5providesrecommendations for various stakeholder groups to support mainstreaming of wetland biodiversity and ecosystem services values in developmental programming.

3

Wetlands: Biodiversity and ecosystem services values

Wetlands are coalesce of land and water, combining attributes of both terrestrial and purely aquatic ecosystems. Key characteristics of these ecosystems include presence of water at or near the surface for at least part of the year, plants adapted to wet conditions (hydrophytes), and soils thatare saturatedorflooded longenough todevelop anaerobic conditions (hydric soils). The Ramsar Convention (1971), a globally coordinated institutional framework for conservation of wetlands,usesabroadapproach fordefiningthese ecosystem as ‘areas of marsh, fen, peatland orwater,whethernaturalorartificial,permanentor temporary,withwater that is staticorflowing,fresh, brackish or salt, including areas of marine water, the depth of which at low tide does not exceed six metres. Article 2.1 of the Convention provides that wetlands ‘may incorporate riparian andcoastal zonesadjacent to thewetlands, andislands or bodies of marine water deeper than six metres at low tide lying within the wetlands’. The definition thuscoversa largenumberof inlandwetlands (such as swamps, marshes, lakes and peatlands); coastal and nearshore marine wetlands (such as coral reefs, mangroves, seagrass beds and estuaries) and human-made wetlands (such as rice-paddies,dams, reservoirsandfishponds).

india is endowed with a rich diversity of wetlands, owing to the extremes of climatic, geological and topographic diversity experienced in the country. Wetlands in india range from high altitude lakes in the Himalayas, marshes and swamps in the Terai,floodplainsandox-bows in theGangetic-Brahmaputraalluvialplains, salineflats in theGreatindian Desert, tanks and reservoirs in the Deccan region, and extensive mangrove marshes and coral reef areas interspersed along the country’s over 8,000 km long coastline. These ecosystems range in areas from small village ponds (having area less than an acre) to large lagoons such as Chilika and

2. Wetlands in India Status, Trends and Key Management

Challenges

• India,owing toherwidegeomorphological andclimaticvariability, is endowed with a rich diversity of inland and coastal wetlands. As per National Wetland Atlas of 2011, these ecosystems span 15.26 million ha, accounting for 4.63 per cent of the country’s geographical area.

• Wetlandsarevital societal assets contributing to food,water and livelihood security and cultural identity for a large population. These ecosystems are also inhabited by a diverse range of plant and animal species, several of highconservationsignificance.

• Nationalprogramming forwetlandconservationandsustainable management is focused around a network of sites prioritized by state governments. Programmatic framework and regulatory mechanism for management of these ecosystems have evolved within the broad ambit of National Environment Policy.

• Despite theirwide-rangingecosystemservicesandbiodiversity values, wetlands have continued to degrade. As per conservative estimates, nearly 30 per cent of naturalwetlandshavebeen lost in the lastfivedecadesalone. Lack of consideration of wetland biodiversity and ecosystem services values in developmental programming hasa significant influenceon thedriversofdegradation.

• Throughninepilot studies, TIIhasendeavoured todemonstrate application of economic approaches to wetland management. Decision-making contexts assessed in these studies relate to wetland restoration, integrated land and water resources management, property rights anddistributionof costsandbenefits, anduseofmarketbased instruments forfinancingmanagement.

4

Mangroves at Pitchavaram, Tamil Nadu

WIS

A P

hoto

Lib

rary

Vembanad backwaters having expanse of over a thousand square kilometer.

Wetlands are central to water and food security of the country. Many large cities, for example, Bhopal in Madhya Pradesh (Verma et al., 2001), Delhi (Trisal et al., 2008), and Kollam in Kerala (Ramsar, 2002) depend on wetlands for their water supplies. Kumar et al. (2005) have assessed that the rechargeofgroundwater from thefloodplainwetlandsassociatedwith themajor river systems inindia exceed 430 km3 per annum, which is atleast 38 per cent of the available water resources of the country. The high altitude Himalayan wetlands capture the glacial melt and form the source of the eight largest rivers of Asia, basins of which supportnearlyone-fifthofglobalpopulation (TrisalandKumar,2008). ThefloodplainsofGangaandBrahmaputra account for over 40 per cent of the total cultivatedarea in thecountry, andareamajorsourceof thecountry’s riceandfishproduction.Thesefloodplainsalsohold thegermplasmofIndianmajor carps,whichare thebackboneofindia’s freshwater aquaculture (Dehadrai and Yadava,2004).Besidesfish, aquaticplants such as Euryale ferox, Trapa bispinosa and Nelumbo spp. contribute significantly to foodandnutritionalsecurity in northern india. Nearly 1.2 million tanks of southern states of Andhra Pradesh, Telangana, Karnataka, and Tamil Nadu support around 60 per cent of india’s tank irrigated area (Palanisami et al., 2010). East Kolkata Wetlands (West Bengal) are an important component of the wastewater treatment infrastructure of the city. These wetlands help treat nearly 600 million litres of sewage daily through an ingenious practice of waste-based pisciculture, agriculture and horticulture (Kundu et al., 2008).

Wetlandsalsoactasbuffersagainstextremeevents.A significantproportionof summerflowsof Jhelum River draining the picturesque Kashmir Valley are absorbed by Wular Lake (WiSA, 2007). Conversion of wetlands and encroachment of floodchannelshavebeencitedasaprimary factors that caused extensive damage and losses tohuman lifeduringfloodsofSeptember2014.Similarly, the City of Guwahati is cushioned fromdevastatingfloodsofRiverBramhaputraby Deepor Beel and associated wetlands (Gogoi, 2007), Kathiresan and Thakur (2008) present extensive accounts of role of mangrove marshes in

guarding against the impacts of tropical storms and cyclones.

Wetlands have deep connections with indian culture and traditions. Loktak Lake (Manipur) is revered as ‘ima’ (meaning Mother) by the inhabitants of Manipur valley, whereas Khecheopalri Lake (Sikkim) ispopularasthe‘wishfulfillinglake’.NorthIndianfestival of Chhath is one of the most unique expressions of the association of people, culture, water and wetlands (WiSA, 2015). Dal Lake (Jammu &Kashmir),KhajjiarLake(HimachalPradesh),NainitalLake(Uttarakhand)andKodaikanal(TamilNadu) are popular tourism destinations of the country,contributingsignificantlytolocaleconomy.Fisheries and tourism in Lake Chilika (Odisha) support livelihoods of over 0.2 million people living around the lagoon (Kumar and Pattnaik, 2012).

Wetlands serve as habitats for numerous plant and animal species, including several of high conservation value. Existing records indicate presenceofnearly1,200floristic (Prasadetal.,2002) and 18,000 faunal (Alfred et al., 1998; Alfred and Nandi, 2000) species in these ecosystems. The Zoological Survey of india (ZSi) has also recordedpresenceof3,022fishspecies in thenation’s aquatic environment (MoEF, 2014). These are important parts of food chain as well as components of food and nutritional security of a large human population. For 276 recorded water bird species (Gopi et al., 2014), wetlands provide critical resting, roosting, feeding and foraging habitats.

indian wetlands harbour a number of globally threatened species requiring urgent conservation action. The 646 threatened faunal species in india include213fishand74amphibians. Twentyoneof the 28 species of freshwater turtles found in the country’s wetlands are assessed as being globally threatened (MoEF, 2014). Similarly, of the water bird species recorded in indian wetlands, 49 species are classed in threatened category (4 as critically endangered, 7 endangered, 16 vulnerable and 22 near threatened) (Gopi et al., 2014).

Several wetlands are habitats of charismatic species. Chilika maintains a healthy population of, and is one of the only two lagoons in the world inhabited by irrawaddy Dolphin (Orcaella brevirostris).Keibul Lamjao, afloatingNationalParkon the south of Loktak Lake is the only known

5

natural habitat of globally endangered swamp deer commonly known as Brow-antlered Deer (Rucervus eldii). The largest remaining populations of critically endangered Gharial (Gavialis gangeticus) are concentrated around riverine wetlands of River Son, Girwa and Chambal of Central india. The spectacular wetlands of Ladakh are the only known breeding grounds of globally vulnerable Black-necked Crane (Grus nigricollis) in india (Chandan et al., 2005). Over 70 per cent of the global population of Great indian Rhinoceros (Rhinoceros unicornis) is largely confinedwithin thegrasslandsand swamps of Kaziranga National Park in Assam.

The mangrove species diversity in india represents nearly 60 per cent of the known global diversity (Bhatt et al., 2013), supporting over 920 plant and over 3,100 animal species (Bhatt et al., 2011). The 39 true mangrove species recorded from indian mangrove marshes include the world’s largest block of halophytic mangroves (Sundarbans which straddles india and Bangladesh), including two globally threatened species Sonneratiagriffithii and Heritiera fomes. Similarly, the coralline diversity in the country, constituted by 478 species of 89 genera, forms 60 per cent of the global hermatypic genera (Bhatt et al., 2011).

Placed geographically in the core region of the Central Asian Flyway (CAF), indian wetlands are ofhigh significance formigratingwaterbirdspecies within a large intracontinental territory between the Arctic and the indian Ocean. indian wetlands are host to 81 extralimital seasonal immigrants from Palaearctic Region beyond the Himalayas – in Central and Northern Asia, and Eastern and Northern Europe (CMS, 2005). Of these, Baer's Pochard (Aythya baeri), Spoon-billed Sandpiper (Calidris pygmaea) and Sociable Lapwing (Vanellus gregarious) are classed as being critically endangered.

Status and trends

Several wetland types exhibit large seasonal and inter-annual variations in inundation regimes and vegetation, rendering comprehensive assessment of statusand trendsdifficult.Nonetheless,effortsto create an inventory of wetlands and assess their extent in the country have been made since the 1980s, wherein an All india Wetland Survey was initiated by the Government of india. The Directory

of Asian Wetlands of 1989 reported the wetland area in the country to be 58.3 million ha, which included 40.9 million ha under paddy cultivation (Scott,1989). Efforts tomapwetlandsatnationalscale using remote sensing techniques began in the nineties (see Garg, 2015 for an overview). Thefirst remotesensingbasedNational Inventoryof Wetlands was published in 1998 by Space Application Centre (Garg et al., 1998) using post and pre monsoon imageries of 1992-93 (iRS LiSS i and ii data). Subsequently, the national inventory was updated at a uniform scale (1:250,000) using 2004 – 05 Resourcesat AWiFS (8 m spatial data), as per which the national wetland extent was assessed to be 8.83 million ha, excluding paddy area. The inventory, however, was not published (Garg et al., 1998). in 2004, the Salim Ali Center forOrnithology (SACON)underaUNDPsponsoredproject, carriedoutamappingof inlandwetlandsusing 23.5 m resolution data of iRS LiSS iii mostly of2001 (Vijayanetal.,2004). Theassessmentalso included data on select species groups for analyzingconservationsignificance.

The MoEFCC (the then MoEF) commissioned a nation-widewetlandmappingprojectentitled‘National Wetland inventory and Assessment’ to the SpaceApplicationCentre(SAC)in2007.Theprojectuseda19wetlandtypeclassification(includingnatural as well as human-made), derived from analysisofRESOURCESATILISSIIIdataof 2006 – 07 at 1:50,000 scale (with 23.5 m resolution) for pre-monsoon and post-monsoon periods (SAC,2011).Theatlas,forthefirsttime,includeda separate category of high altitude wetlands (wetlands located at 3,000 m amsl). A summary of wetland inventory information resulting from remote sensing methods is presented in Table 2.1. As can be noted, the variation in wetland extent reported in these assessments is largely due to use of data of differentresolutionsandmappingscales,anddoesnot necessarily depict trends of change.

The most recent of remote sensing based assessment, the 2011 National Wetland Atlas, places the national extent of wetlands as 15.26 million ha, equivalent to 4.63 per cent of the country’s geographical area (SAC, 2011). inland wetlands (including wetlands below the minimum mapping unit of 2.25 ha) constitute 69 per cent (10.56 million ha) of the total wetland area. High altitude wetlands have been assessed to extend

6

126,249ha. ThestateofGujarathas themaximumwetland area (3.47 million ha).

A distribution of wetlands in the 10 biogeographic zones of the country is presented in Fig 2.1. The Deccan Peninsula and desert – semi arid region account for nearly 30 per cent each of the total extent, Gangetic plains and coasts each account for 12 per cent of the wetland extent. North-East region and Western Ghats have 6 per cent and 4 per cent of the total wetland extent respectively. The Himalayan region (including Trans-Himalayas)

has 4 per cent of the total extent, whereas the islands constitute the balance 1.5 per cent.

Predominance of wetlands also varies across the biogeographic zones. Rivers and riverine wetlands constitute 35 per cent of the total wetland area in the country, and are the predominant wetland types in Gangetic plains (56%), Himalayas (74%), Trans-Himalayas (59%), North-East (79%), Semi-arid (34%) and Western Ghats (30%) biogeographic regions. Within Deccan Peninsula, 33 per cent of wetland area is constituted by reservoirs and barrages.Within thedesert, intertidalmudflatsaccount for 81 per cent of its wetland area. Coral reefs constitute 45 per cent of the total wetland area in the islands.

Discerning trends in wetlands extent is rendered difficultduetodifferencesinresolutionofdata, and comprehensiveness of assessments. in fact, periodic assessments, since 1987, have been conducted only for mangroves as a part of the biennial forest area assessment by the Forest Survey of india. The 1987 assessment was done at 1:1,000,000scale,whichwassubsequentlyrefinedto 1:250,000 from 1989 to 1999 and 1:50,000 from2001onwards.Vijayanetal.(2004),usingremote sensing based change analysis data from 71 districts, surmised a loss of 38 per cent inland wetlands during 1992-2001.

Fig 2.1: Distribution of wetlands in different biogeographic zones of India (Source: Authors’s estimate based on data from SAC, 2011)

Table 2.1 Summary of remote sensing based inventories of Indian wetlands

Title Agency Year of Publication

Base Data

Assessment Scale

Coverage Wetland classes (number)

Inventory results (million ha)

Total Inland Coastal

Nation-wide Wetland Mapping Project

SAC 1998 1992-93 Mix of 1:250,000 and 1:50,000

National 24 7.58 3.55 4.02

SAC Unpublished 2004–05 1:250,000 National NA 8.83 NA NA

inland Wetlands of india – Conservation Priorities

SACON 2004 1999-2001

1: 50,000 National; inland Wetlands

9 7

National Wetland inventory and Assessment

SAC 2011 2006-7 1:50,000 National; inland and Coastal Wetlands

19 15.26* 11.12 4.14

*includes 0.56 million ha wetlands under the minimum mapping unit of 2.25 ha, NA = Not Available

7

5,000,000.00

Tra

ns-H

ima

laya

Wetl

an

d t

yp

es (

Are

a in

ha)

4,000,000.00

3,000,000.00

2,000,000.00

1,000,000.00

0.00 Him

ala

ya

No

rth E

ast

Ga

ng

etic

Pla

in

Se

mi-A

rid

De

se

rt

De

cca

n P

en

insu

la

We

ste

rn G

ha

ts

Co

asts

Isla

nd

s

Lake / Pond

Ox-bow lake

High altitude wetland

Riverine wetland

Waterlogged (Natural)

River / Stream

Reservoir /Barrage

Tank / Pond

Waterlogged (Human-made)

Salt pan

Lagoon

Creek

Sand / Beach

Intertidal mud flat

Salt Marsh

Mangrove

Coral Reef

Salt pan2

Aquaculture pond

Wetland <2.25 ha

Biogeographic Zones

This report endeavours a statistical trend analysis of change in wetland area based for the period 1940-2010,andprojected for2050.Rivershave been excluded from analysis as no spatial extent change records could be derived from the literature search. Records of change in wetland areawerederived frompublished journalpapers,reports and datasets, and each record allocated to one of the seven decades between 1941-2010. For consistency, annual percentage change in wetland area was calculated as arithmetic mean between the start and end year of the record. Trends in area under natural inland wetlands were derived from records for rural and urban lakes. Thesewereestimatedseparately, andprojectedinto a cumulative estimate using the proportion of urban to rural areas. Data on areas of large reservoirs was used to estimate change in area under barrages/ reservoirs. Change in area under tanks in Tamil Nadu and Andhra Pradesh have been used to derive trends for tanks. Trends in area under mangroves were derived from FAO and Forest Survey of india datasets. For lagoons, thedatapertains to threemajorwetlands,namelyChilika, Ashtamudi and Vembanad. Rate of change for all other coastal wetlands were imputed as the average of rates of change of mangroves and lagoons. All rates of change were converted into areaprojectionsusing2007datapresented inSAC(2011).Projections for2050havebeenmadebyextrapolating the rates of change in area during 2001-2010 decade. The analysis indicates that since 1940, atleast 30 per cent of natural wetland area has been lost (Fig 2.2).

Wetlands are globally one of the most rapidly degrading ecosystems (Davidson, 2014; Gardner et al.,2015), and these trendsarealso reflected inthe statusof Indianwetlands. Themajordirectandindirect threats impacting wetland biodiversity and ecosystem services include alteration of natural hydrological regimes, catchment degradation, nutrient enrichment, pollution, over-harvesting of resources, unregulated tourism, and climate change.

Alteration of natural hydrological regimes: Water regimes structure biodiversity and ecosystem services of wetlands. Alteration of natural hydrological regimes often leads to reduced or enhanced water availability, altered hydro-period, loss of connectivity with biodiversity habitats, impeded nutrient exchange and other processes whichsignificantlyenhance theirdegradation(Parikh et al., 2012).

Until2007,about1000mediumand276major irrigationprojectswitha totalwaterstorage capacity of 222 billion cubic metres were constructed in india (CWC, 2010). These projectshaveplayedacritical role inprovidingwater for economic usage such as hydro-power and agriculture, but in several instances, lack of consideration of the functioning of wetland ecosystem services has created adverse impacts on the integrity of aquatic habitats. Diversion of water for hydropower generation through construction of ithai Barrage downstream of Loktak Lake has convertedanaturalfloodplain lake into reservoir,criticallyaffecting thehabitatof theManipurBrow-antlered Deer and nearly complete obstruction ofmigratorypathwaysoffishes fromChindwin-irrawaddy system (WiSA, 2005). in Kashmir valley, conversion of marshes associated with Wular Lake for agriculture, has reduced the capacity of the wetlandcomplex in regulatingflow regimes, andthereby, leading to increasedfloodsanddroughts(WiSA, 2007).

Catchment degradation: The water holding capacity of wetlands plays a crucial role in determining its ability to regulateflow regimes, cyclenutrientsandsupport biodiversity. Being depositional in nature, wetlands act as sediment traps, which in the long run play a key role in their succession. However, catchment degradation accelerates sedimentation rates, thereby, risking sustenance of ecosystem processes and services.

8

10.00

8.00

6.00

4.00

2.00

–

Watland a

rea (

mill

ion h

a)

1940 1960 1980 2000 2020 2040

Natural Wetlands Human made wetlands

Fig 2.2: Trend analysis of area under wetland

The 2010 bathymetric surveys of Harike Lake (Punjab)have indicateda lossof86per centofwater holding capacity since 1954 due to excessive silt accumulation from Shivalik catchments. The resulting decline in inundation has reduced hydrological regime moderation capability of this wetland, and coupled with high levels of nutrient enrichment, promoted infestation of invasive species Eichhornia crassipes. SurajkundandBadhkal Lakes, tourist hotspots of Haryana in the vicinity of Delhi, frequently run dry on account of excessive mining in the catchments, which prevents inflowof rainwaterand rechargeofgroundwatercritical to the maintenance of the hydrological regimes of these wetlands (Parikh et al., 2012).

Pollution: increasing urbanization without development of adequate waste management infrastructure has led to increased pollution in wetlands located within urban and the peri–urban areas.Agricultural intensificationand the increaseduse of chemical fertilizers have resulted in negative impacts on the water quality within rural wetlands. For instance,mostof theGangeticfloodplainwetlands are in advanced state of eutrophication due to discharge of untreated sewage and sewerageaswell as runoff fromagriculturalfields(Kumar, 2015).

Invasive alien species: Most of the inland wetlands of india have been invaded by exotic species, which have acquired nuisance proportions considerably influencing thenativebiotaandhabitat conditions. The list is topped by the water hyacinth, which was introduced into india about a century ago and now occurs almost throughout India. Theothermajor species thathave gradually infested several wetlands are Salvinia molesta, ipomoea carnea and Alternanthera philoxeroides.Highlyadverse impactsoffishinvasive on local biodiversity have been noted in the case of Tilapia (Oreochromis mossambicus) (Parikh et al., 2012).

Over–harvesting of resources: Owing to high livelihood dependence, wetlands are often subjected toover–harvestingof resourcesandmodification forenhancingprovisioning servicessuchaswood,fish, andwaterat thecostofregulatingandculturalservices.Usesofdetrimentalfishingpractices, suchas smallmeshsizenets,areprevalent inamajorityof inlandwetlands.

Often sustainable yield for a particular wetland is not known and at times ignored by stakeholders. Wetland biodiversity and wider food webs are also put under stress by loss through by-catch. Varying inundation regimesareoftenmodified tosuit agricultural and aquaculture uses (MoEFCC & GiZ, 2014). For example, livelihoods of over 15,000fishers livingaroundKanwar Jheel inNorthBihar have been disrupted as dynamic inundation patterns in Kanwar Jheel have been transformed for promoting permanent agriculture (WiSA, 2015). Agriculture in turn has been impacted by lowering ofgroundwater levelsandfloodingattributed toshrinkages in wetland regimes (WiSA, 2015).

Unregulated tourism: Tourism contributes nearly six per cent to the national Gross Domestic Product (GDP) and generates nine per cent of the total employment, making it an important driver of growth. Wetlands, an important part of tourism experience, are likely to see an increase in touristic pressure in the times to come. For example, the backwaters of Kerala are visited by nearly 0.7 million tourists annually. Accordingly, tourism industry ensures livelihood of over 85,000 households (WiSA, 2013). Often, the habitat characteristics or functioning of wetlands are not taken into account while developing tourism infrastructure and recreation facilities. For instance, increase in houseboats in Dal Lake (Jammu & Kashmir) and Vembanad-Kol backwaters (Kerala) have converted tourism from a livelihood opportunity to threat to these fragile ecosystems.

Climate change: Global climate change is fast emerging as an important driver of loss and change in wetlands, especially high altitude and coastal wetlands, which face high risks of adverse changes in ecological character. Climate change induced melting of glaciers has led to increased water levels of Tsomoriri (Ladakh), submerging habitats utilised by endangered migratory birds such as the Black-necked Crane and Bar-headed Geese (Chandan et al., 2008). Modelling simulations indicate that about 84 per cent of coastal wetlands are at risk due to a one metre sea level rise (Blankespoor et al., 2012). inland wetlands are at risk from alteration in hydrological regimes and eutrophication, and algal blooms that are likely to result from increasing temperatures (Gopal, 2013).

9

Conservation and management efforts

Wetland conservation draws strength from india’s rich legacy of environmental conservation enshrined in various policies, legislations and regulatory regimes. The indian Constitution encapsulates this spirit, notably in its Article 51–A (g) stating that “it shall be the duty of every citizen of india to protect and improve the natural environment including forests, lakes, rivers and wildlife and to have compassion for living creatures.”

Wetland conservation and their sustainable management is placed within the mandate of MoEFCC. Wetlands were initially conserved primarily for their biodiversity values, and several predominantly wetland landscapes such as Keoladeo, Harike, Kaziranga and Manas were declared as Wildlife Sanctuaries and National Parks(IUCNCategoryIIprotectedarea).WithIndiabecoming a party to the Ramsar Convention in 1982, and MoEFCC (the then MoEF) being established in 1985, a national programing framework for wetlands was institutionalized. MoEFCC established the National Wetland Conservation Plan (NWCP) in 1986 to provide overarching national policy framework andfinancialassistancetothestategovernmentsfor implementation of site management plans. in 2001, the National Lake Conservation Programme (NLCP) was introduced to address pollution issues in urban and semi-urban water bodies through interception, diversion and treatment of pollution load. As of December 2013, the network of sites of nationalandinternationalsignificanceincluded170wetlands. india has also designated 26 wetlands as Ramsar Sites.

The National Conservation Strategy and Policy Statement on Environment and Development (1992) identifiedpollutionandover-exploitationof wetlands as an area of concern. Conservation of wetlands was emphasized as a strategy for sustainable use of land and water resources as well as biodiversity conservation. Subsequently, the National Environment Policy (2006) laid down specificpolicyelements forwetlands.Wetlandshavebeen identifiedas componentsof ‘freshwaterresources’ and the recommended policy actions for wetlands conservation include integration in developmental planning, management based on prudent use strategies, promotion of ecotourism,

and implementation of a regulatory framework. integration of wetlands in river basin management hasbeen identifiedasa strategy formanagementof river systems.

in 2010, in line with recommended policy actions, a regulatory framework for wetlands was introduced by MoEFCC in the form of Wetland (Conservation and Management) Rules, 2010 under the provisions of the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986. The Rules stipulate prohibition and regulation of a range of developmental activities withinawetlandnotifiedunderprovisionsby thestate governments. A Central Wetlands Regulatory Authority (CWRA) has been constituted for the purpose of enforcing the rules, to evaluate proposals forwetlandnotificationsentby thestate governments, and to set thresholds for activities to be regulated. However, implementation of the framework has not been as desired. The MoEFCC is therefore contemplating revision of these rules in order to provide for a decentralized framework,while taking intoaccount site specificcharacteristics and ecosystem services. A revised draft of the Wetlands Rules was under public consultation at the time of writing this report.

Provisions of the indian Forest Act, 1927 and the IndianWildlife (Protection)Act,1972definethe regulatory framework for wetlands located within forests and designated protected areas. Similarly, coastal wetlands are protected under theCoastalRegulationZone (CRZ)Notification(2011) and the island Protection Zone (iPZ) Notification (2011). TheseNotifications recognizecoral reefs,mangroves,mudflats, andsaltmarshesas ecologically sensitive and categorize them as CRZ-i, which implies that these areas are accorded protection of the highest order. The indian Fisheries Act, 1897, The Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974, The Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 and The Biological Diversity Act, 2002 provide substantive legal and regulatory framework for conservation of indian wetlands. The Coastal Aquaculture Authority Act, 2005 prohibits conversion of natural coastal wetlands such as mangroves, salt pans, estuaries and lagoons for aquaculture.

in line with the CBD Strategic Plan 2011–2020, india has formulated 12 National Biodiversity Targets.Wetlandsfinddirect referenceunderTarget

10

3 (strategies for reducing rate of degradation, fragmentation and loss of natural habitats are finalizedandactionsput inplaceby2020), Target6 (ecologically representative areas on land and in inland waters, as well as coastal and marine zones, especially those of particular importance for species, biodiversity and ecosystem services, are conservedeffectivelyandequitably), andTarget8 (by 2020, ecosystem services, especially those related to water, human health and livelihoods and well-being are enumerated and measures to safeguard themare identified).

Wetlandsalsofindplace in sectoralpolicies forwater and climate change. The National Water Policy (2012) provides an important policy framework for linking wetlands to water resources management. The policy recommends adoption of a basin approach for water resources management, and identifiesconservationof river corridors,waterbodies and associated ecosystems as an important action area. Ministry of Water Resources, River DevelopmentandGangaRejuvenation (MoWRRD)has several programmes that contribute to wetland conservation. The MoWRRD also coordinates implementation of pilot scheme for “National Project forRepair,Renovation&Restoration (RRR)of Water Bodies directly linked to Agriculture” since January, 2005. The scheme supports restoration and augmentation of storage capacities of water bodies, including recovery and extension of their lost irrigation potential. in 2013, the Ministry of UrbanDevelopment (MoUD) issuedanadvisoryon conservation and restoration of waterbodies in urban areas, identifying funding streams of the MoUDandMoWRRD forurbanwetlands (MoUD,2013).

The National Action Plan for Climate Change has identifiedeightmissionswhich form thecore intervention strategy for climate change mitigation and adaptation. Wetland conservation and sustainable management is included in the National Water Mission. Similarly, the National Mission for Green india has a target of 0.1 Mha for wetlands conservation and an additional 0.1 Mha for mangroves.

Several state governments (notably West Bengal, Odisha, Kerala, Manipur and Assam) have also enacted their own legislations pertaining to wetlands. TheGovernmentofManipurnotified

the Manipur Loktak Lake (Protection) Act, 2006 and Manipur Loktak Lake (Protection) Rules, 2008, whichdefineacorezoneandbuffer zone, andstipulate specificactivities that canbepermittedwithin these designated areas. Similarly, the East Kolkata Wetlands (Conservation and Management) Act, 2006 recognizes use of sewage as one of the core ecological characteristics of the East Kolkata Wetlands. in Kerala, the Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008, bans conversion of wetlands. in 2015, the state governments of KarnatakaandRajasthanhaveenacted legislationsfor conservation of wetlands.

Some state governments have constituted dedicated wetland authorities to address the need for coordinatedefforts in implementationofmanagement plans by multiple departments and stakeholders. Loktak Lake is one of the largest freshwater lakes in the North-East. The Lake was seeing rapid degradation due to invasive species, shrinkage in area and reduction in water holding capacity, particularly after the commissioning of LoktakHydro-electricProject in1983.Accordingly,the Loktak Development Authority (LDA) was constituted in1986,making itoneof thefirstwetland development authorities established in the country. in 1991, the Government of Odisha constituted the Chilika Development Authority to address the pressures on Chilika Lake, the largest brackish water lagoon on the east coast. The lake was threatened by increasing silt load, declining fisheriesandexpansionof shrimpaquaculture.

in 1997, the Government of Jammu and Kashmir, undertheaegisoftheHousingandUrbanDevelopment Department, constituted the Lakes and Waterways Development Authority for restoration of Dal and Nigeen Lakes. Since 2000, separate wetland authorities have been created for waterbodies of Madhya Pradesh, lakes within Bengaluru City (Karnataka), and East Kolkata Wetlands. The Lake Conservation Authority of Madhya Pradesh initiallyfocusedonBhojWetlands,butin2004was entrusted with the mandate of conserving all waterbodies of the state. Odisha and Bihar constituted a State Level Wetland Authority in 2012 and 2014 respectively. Till date, eight states have constituted Wetland Authorities as the nodal policy and regulation enforcing institutions at the state level.

11

The core of management interventions for indian wetlands has been based on a mix of ecosystem service approach and prioritisation based on biodiversity values. Successes as reflected inecological restorationofChilika, andits transformation from a Ramsar Site enlisted within Montreux Record to an award winning site, namely Ramsar Wetland Conservation Award and Evian Special Prize in 2002, are indicative of the significanceattached toconservationofwetlandsin the country.

Gaps and challenges

Evidences of continued degradation of natural wetlands are an indication that the required scale of integrationof their valuesandbenefits inbroader developmental programming is yet to be fully achieved. The following gaps and challenges limiteffectivenessofpolicyandprogrammaticmeasures for wetlands in the country:

Sectoral approaches: The full ranges of ecosystem services and biological diversity values of wetlands are rarely integrated in sectoral developmental plans. This impedes the ecological and hydrological functioning of aquatic ecosystems and leads to stakeholder conflicts. In several instances,interventions for increasing food production and water supply (e.g. through construction of hydraulic structures and expansion of irrigated area) have led to reduced ability of wetlands to recharge groundwater, andbufferfloods. Inmost states,wetlands are often clubbed within ‘wastelands’ meant to be used for alternate developmental purposes and are not recognized as a distinct land use category. Within sectoral policies, there is considerable scope of enhancing recognition of various wetland ecosystem services. The National Water Policy (2012), while recommending allocation of water for maintaining ecosystems, does not allude to wetlands as a solution in achievingwatermanagementobjectives suchasfloodcontrol, groundwater rechargeand increasingoverall freshwater availability. The National Action Plan for Climate Change needs to acknowledge the contribution of wetlands towards climate change adaptation, and also addressing the risks imposed on these ecosystems due to maladaptation. Wetlands also need to be included within National

Agriculture Policy and National Marine Fisheries Policy, as lack of consideration of wetland functioning within prevailing agriculture practices and food production programmes continues to be a significantdriverofwetlanddegradation.

Ineffective governance mechanisms: implementing restoration plans for wetlands requires cross-sectoral institutional arrangements. This was envisaged to be achieved through creation of dedicated authorities responsible for developing management plans, implementation through line departments, monitoring and evaluation. However, only few states have been able to establish distinct authorities. Further, many of these authorities do not have any form of regulatory backing.

Ad-hoc approach to implementation of management plans: The management plans for most wetlands are not based on landscape-level planning. These plans, therefore, are prescriptive by nature, and do not address the root causes of degradation (for example fragmentation in hydrological regimesorpollution). Postprojectsustainability strategies are also not worked out. Very few states have included allocation for wetlands within their budgets. Moreover, wherever included, it is mostly for establishment expenses and not for supporting restoration.

Insufficient capacity for integrated management: A review of management plans indicates that there is lack of capacity in drafting of plans that address the full range of drivers of ecosystem degradation. Equally significant is the lackof trainingandcapacity building opportunities for site managers implementing the management plans.

Limited research management interface: To be able to address the diverse drivers of change, management of wetlands would require continuous research inputs. However, this has failed to happen for most sites. Much of the research is focused on structural elements of wetlands (limnology, biodiversity) with very limited emphasis on functional aspects (for example studies elucidating relationship of hydrological regimes with ecosystem services).

12

3. Recognizing economic values of wetland biodiversity and ecosystem services

Economic values and wise use

The ‘wise use’ approach of Ramsar Convention is globally recognized as the central tenet of wetland management. The approach recognizes that restricting wetland loss and degradation requires incorporation of linkages between people and wetlands, and thereby emphasizes that human use of these ecosystems on sustainable basis is compatible with conservation (Finlayson et al., 2011). This approach aligns well with the fact that a certain level of natural variation and disturbance is important to maintain resilience within wetland ecosystems.

TheRamsarConventiononWetlandsdefineswise use as “the maintenance of their ecological character, achieved through the implementation of ecosystem approaches, within the context of sustainable development”. Ecological character is “the combination of ecosystem components, processesandbenefits/services that typify thewetland at a given point in time”. Ecosystem services framework has been drawn into the definitionofecological characterasameansofbridging wetland ecosystem functioning and their human use for well-being (Finlayson et al., 2011). Ecosystems approach requires consideration of the complex relationship between various ecosystem elements and promotion of integrated management of land, water and living resources. Wise use, through emphasis on sustainable development, calls for resource use patterns which can ensure that human dependence on wetlands can be maintained not only in the present, but also in the future. Seen in totality, wise use is about maintaining wetland values and functions in order toensuremaintenanceofflowofbenefits fromwetlands (their ecosystem services) from inter-generational equity point of view.

The term-value of ecosystem services and biodiversity-can be interpreted as importance, preference or a measure thereof. However, value can also mean a principle or core belief underlying

• Thewiseuseapproach formanagingwetlands recognizeshuman sustainable use of these ecosystems, on the basis of their value ascription, as compatible with conservation. it encourages engagement with stakeholders and transparency innegotiatingvalue trade–offsanddetermining equitable outcomes for conservation.

• Economicvaluation improves thepossibilityofachievingsound decisions for wetland wise use by acting as a feedback mechanism alerting the society on the consequences of sectoral developmental pathways for wetland functioning.

• Applicationofeconomicsbasedapproaches forwetlandconservation and management in india is a growing research area. Much of the emphasis still is on valuation ofbenefits fromprovisioningandculturalecosystemservices. There is a pressing need to contextualize valuation within policy and decision-making frameworks and processes.

13

Fisher in Mahanadi River, Odisha

WIS

A P

hoto

Lib

rary

the preferences. The way nature is valued can relate to diverse ontologies and epistemologies, whichhavean influenceonconstitutionandconceptualization of value, and changes brought in across various decision-making contexts. Valuation is “the process of expressing a value for a particular good or service... in terms of something that can be counted, often money, but also through methods and measures from other disciplines (sociology, ecology and so on)” (Farber et al., 2002). Costanza (1991) and North (1994) highlight that valuation involves assigning relative weights to various aspects of individual and social decision problems,with theweightsbeing reflectionsofthe goals and world views of the community, society and cultures of which individuals are parts. Economic valuation, which is the core focus of Tii, is an attempt to express these weights in monetary terms, making them comparable with alternateuses,whichoftenhavebenefitsandcostflowsdefined in similarunits. It isessentiallyananthropocentric way of considering nature, wherein valuesareconsigned to theextent that these fulfiland directly or indirectly contribute to human well-being (positive change in well-being, hereinafter termedasbenefitsafter TEEB,2010).

Wiseuse requiresaddressing trade-offsbetweentwo competing values people hold for wetlands. in the context of wider developmental programing, functioning wetlands produce multiple provisioning, regulating and cultural services, which being interlinked, areaffectedpositivelyoradversely inresponse to wetland use. in several circumstances, ecosystem services co-vary negatively (use of wetlands for permanent agriculture may reduce capability of wetlands to moderate water regimes), whereas some services may co-vary positively (forexample, improvingfloodbufferingcapacityof wetlands can support increased groundwater rechargeandhelpmaintainproductivefisheries).Unfortunately,beingpublicgoods,publicpolicymaking may not consider and internalize a large category of wetland ecosystem services. Economic values may make explicit the impact of public policy or private decisions on ecosystem service values, and enable expression of these value changes in units that allow for their incorporation in public decision-making (Mooney et al., 2005). it is a means of communicating the value of wetland ecosystemservices todifferentgroupsofpeople

using a language that communicates with dominant economic and political viewpoints across the world.

Wise use of wetlands necessitates stakeholder engagement and transparency in negotiating ecosystemservices trade-offsassociatedwithvarious forms of wetland use in order to determine equitable conservation outcomes (Finlayson et al., 2011). Economic valuation increases the possibility of achieving sound decisions on wetland use and management, by acting as a societal feedback mechanism, alerting the society on the consequences of consumption choices and behaviour (Zavestoski, 2004).

Economic valuation of wetland ecosystem services: State-of-the-art

Theoretical frameworks

Ecosystem services concept encapsulates people-environment interactions, a coinage believed to have been introduced by Ehrlich and Ehrlich (1981), building on the earlier literature on nature’s functioning to describe a framework for structuring and synthesizing biophysical understanding of ecosystem processes in terms of human well-being (Brauman et al., 2007). The foundational construct of the ecosystem services is appreciation of the nature-human well-being interlinkages as an intertwinedstock-flow relationship,whereinthe ecosystem (including its components and processes) is perceived as a “stock of natural capital” and the “ecosystemservices”as theflowswhich emanate from the stock of ecosystem assets (Barbier, 2009; Mäler et al., 2009). The continuing decline and degradation of natural capital stock has raised concerns on the capacity of economic systems to ensure maintenance of the natural capital stock for sustained provision of ecosystem services recognizing limits to substitution by human or manufactured capital (Barbier, 1994; Daily, 1997). in the following decades, ecologists and economists have further elaborated the on notion of ecosystems as life support systems, and providers of ecosystem services and economic benefits (EhrlichandMooney,1983;deGroot,1987; Folke et al., 1991). Publications of Costanza et al. (1997); Daily (1997), the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (MEA) and TEEB have played an important role in placing ecosystem services on the global policy agenda.

14

Notably, one of the key outputs of the MEA was a Water and Wetlands Synthesis, prepared with anobjectiveof informing theContractingPartiesof the Ramsar Convention and those involved in the implementation of the Convention, on the key assessmentfindings related towaterandwetlands(MEA, 2005). The assessment concluded that the degradation and loss of wetlands was more rapid than that of other ecosystems, and so was the status of wetland dependent species. A key recommendation was to ensure that information on full rangeofbenefitsprovidedbywetlandecosystem services is considered in decision- making.

The term ecosystem services was implicitly contained as ‘wetland product, functions andattributes’within the initialdefinitionofecological character situating ecosystem services as an outcome of wetland functioning. in 2005, concurrentwith thepublicationofMEAfindings,a proposal for replacing the terms ‘products, functions and attributes’ within the ecological characterdefinition,with ‘services’wasmadebytheScientificandTechnicalReviewPanel (STRP)of the Convention, which was accepted by the Contracting Parties in their 9th Conference of Parties meeting. Thus, after nearly 35 years of Convention’s existence, the core concepts of ‘wise use’ and ‘ecological character’ were linked and ‘ecosystemservices/benefits’ (hereinafterecosystem services) were brought into the implementation processes (Finlayson et al., 2011).

Economic values of wetlands can be recognized and assessed using the existing framework for natural resources valuation. As per the tenets of neoclassical economics, the willingness to pay for thebenefits,orwillingness toaccepta compensation forbeingdenied thebenefitderived from wetland ecosystem services, is an economicmeasureof itsvalue. They reflect thechoice pattern, considering the socio-economic, technological and institutional conditions prevailing while the consumption decisions are made (Barbier et al., 2009). The neoclassical framework has its underpinning in being utilitarian (things count to the extent people want them), anthropocentric (humans impute the values) and instrumentalist (various components of natural world are instruments for human satisfaction) (Randall, 1988).

Theeconomicvaluesofbenefitsderived fromwetland ecosystem services can be assessed using biophysical or preference-based approaches. Biophysical approaches involve estimation of intrinsic properties of wetland ecosystems (for examplematerialflows,primaryproductivity),which are treated as a ‘cost of production’ of these ecosystem services (examples include energy analysis (Costanza, 1980 and Odum, 1996)). On the other hand, preference-based approaches use subjectivepreferencesheldby individualsasabasis of valuation.

The economic value comprises output value (benefitarising fromecosystemserviceprovisionwithin a given ecosystem state) and insurance value (capacity of ecosystems to maintain the output values through their resilience and reorganization capacity (Holling, 1973; Walker et al., 2004)).

The Total Economic Value (TEV) provides a conceptual framework for assessing output value ofwetlandecosystemservices.Under theTEVframework, thebenefitsderived fromecosystemservicescanbebroadlyclassified into twocategories: use value (resulting from direct or indirect use of ecosystem services) and non-use value (resulting from reasons other than direct or indirect use, for example due to satisfaction associated with the fact that a well-managed wetland can be an asset for future generations).

Economic values for wetland ecosystem services can be estimated based on information directly derived from market transaction or through transactions in related markets. Direct market valuation methods use data from actual markets to derive economic values of ecosystem services. Thesecanbebroadlyclassified into three: a)market prices based methods, which derive values based on quantity and prices traded in a perfect market; b) cost-based methods which, are based on estimation of costs incurred if the ecosystem services were to be recreated using alternate means; and c) production function based methods, wherein values are derived from the knowledge of ecosystem services’ contribution to an economic activity.

Valuation methods based on revealed preferences derive values based on “preferences revealed” through the purchases of goods and services

15

bundlesatdifferentincomeandpricecircumstances.Travel cost and hedonic pricing methods are two main methods based on revealed preference. Stated preference methods derive willingness to pay or accept through choices made in hypothetical or constructed situations. Stated preference based methods are more suited for assessing non-use values of wetland ecosystems, and broadly include two methods: a) contingent valuation, and b) choice modelling. Each of these techniques has its own assumptions, merits and shortcomings. While neoclassical methods assume existence of preferences which are discovered, deliberative methods are being increasingly applied to support emergence of values from a communicative social process (Zografos and Paavola, 2008).

Given thedifferences in site characteristics,ideally a detailed value assessment for each site of interest would be commissioned. However, there are practical limitations of various sorts, key being cost and time implications. The benefit transfermethodaddresses the lackofinformation on values for a particular site by transferring an existing valuation estimate from asimilarecosystem. If care is taken toadjust forimportantdifferencesbetween the two,benefittransfer provides a cost and time saving approach for estimation of economic value of ecosystem services (Smith et al., 2002). There are, however, methodological issues related todifferences inspatial scales at which ecosystem services are supplied and demanded, and non-constant marginal values (Spash and Vatn, 2006). Economic valuation is also associated with uncertainty of various forms and levels, which need to be understood for a meaningful application in policy (e.g. Ready et al., 1995; Akter et al., 2008; Kontoleon et al., 2002).

While economic valuation has its intrinsic appeal in terms of highlighting the consequences of production and consumption choices on wetlands, there are critiques of the science and practice of valuation as well. The complexity of ecosystems coupled with nature of various ecosystem services, renders their individual classification impossible(Costanza and Folke, 1997). The legitimacy of foundational constructs of neoclassical valuation economics, namely individual rationality and choice and preference relationships, have been extensively questioned (BromleyandPaavola,2002;Sagoff,

1994). The other line of critique stems from the scientificobjectivityassociatedwithvalues, asthese are mainly contextual and therefore cannot be meaningfully reduced in terms of single number orevena range (Sagoff,2011). Suchcritiquesuggests that economic valuation of wetlands, and natural resources ingeneral, is anevolvingfieldand needs to be continually enriched with better understanding of ecosystem functioning and plurality of values, so as to meaningfully support conservation and wise use of these ecosystems.

Evidence base

in india, economic valuation of wetlands has receivedattentionasamajor researchareaonlysince the last decade and a half. One of the early attempts was under the then MoEF’s Eco-development Programme, wherein an application of valuation techniques was done on Keoladeo NationalPark (Bharatpur,Rajasthan)withanaimto provide possible policy options for improving people-park relationships. Subsequently, the World Bank supported ‘Environmental Management Capacity Building Technical Assistance’ (EMCaB) Project, implementedduring1996–2004bythe then MoEF with indira Gandhi institute of Development Research (iGiDR, Mumbai), institute of Economic Growth (iEG, Delhi), Madras School of Economics (MSE, Chennai) and other agencies put significant focusonpromoting researchusingeconomic valuation tools, of which wetlands were oneof thepriorityareas.Since then, the subjectmatter has been accorded high priority within research programmes of MoEFCC and several universities.

An early example of application of economic valuation techniques to wetlands was use of Travel Cost Method to assess the consumer surplus for Keoladeo National Park (Chopra, 1998). James and Murty (1998) applied Contingent Valuation Methodformeasuringnon-userbenefitsfromcleaning Ganga. James (1998) applied opportunity cost methods for assessing the economic values of the Vembanad-Kol system. Verma et al. (2001) demonstrated use of contingent valuation method toassessthewillingnesstopayforBhojWetlandsin Madhya Pradesh. Kumar et al. (2001) used a mix of revealed and stated preference approaches, including production function approach, to assess

16

thebenefitsfromRiverYamunafloodplainsinDelhi.Applying contingent valuation method in the case of Pallikarnai marshlands in Chennai, Venkatachalam and Janyanthi (2016) concluded that the residents were willing to pay ` 2,096 per annum for improvement in ecological status of the wetland.

Anoop et al. (2008) imputed use value of ` 1,924 million to Ashtamudi Estuary, using a mix of direct market and value transfer based methods for fisheries,huskretting,inlandnavigation,recreation,and carbon sequestration. Hirway and Goswami (2007) estimated direct and indirect use values of Gujaratmangrovestobe` 1,603 million and ` 2,858 million per year (2003 prices) respectively. Guha and Ghosh (2009) used a zonal travel cost method to estimate annual recreational value of indian citizens visiting indian Sundarbans. The value was estimated tobeUS$377,000(in2006).DasandVincent(2009)estimated the opportunity cost of saving a life by retaining mangroves was ` 11.7 million per life saved. Hussain and Badola (2010) provided estimates of livelihood support from mangroves in Bhitarkanika conservation area, concluding that each household derivedUS$107worthbenefitsfromfisheryandforestproducts,whichwasapproximatelyone-fifthoftheir annual income.

Dixit et al. (2010, 2012) used value transfer method toestimatefisheries,recreation,protectionofcoastal aquifers from salinity ingress, erosion control and biodiversity related values of coral reefs of GulfofKachchhinGujarat.Thevalueofecosystemservices emanating from reefs was estimated to be ` 2200.24 million (at 2007 prices).

Singh and Gopal (2002) in their analysis of recreational values of Nainital Lake have used Participatory Rural Appraisal methods to cover perception of a range of stakeholders, such as boatmen, horsemen, coolies and professionals and linked them to the value attributes. An analysis of netandgrossvaluesadded infisheriesofChilikaLake has been linked to analysis of livelihood systems to validate distributional consequences of increase infish landing fromChilika in the studyofKumar (2012).

Trade-offsemerging frompolicydecisions formauseful application area of economic valuation tools. ThestudyofYamunafloodplains involvedassessingtheopportunity costof converting thefloodplainsfor development and concluded that the same

couldnotbe justifiedon thegroundsofeconomicefficiency (Kumaretal.,2001). Economicvaluationwas used as a tool to assess the impacts of freshwaterflow regulationonecosystemservicesof Chilika Lake. The assessment highlighted the positivebenefitsoffloods tofloodplainagricultureaswell asdownstreamwetlandfisheries. It alsoindicated that the possibility of policy decisions leading to reduced freshwaterflowswere likely tolead to negative economic consequences in terms ofvaluesoffisheries,floodingandwaterlogging(WiSA, 2004).

Only two studies have attempted extrapolation of economic values of wetlands or impacts of change in wetland extent to state or national level aggregates. Pandey et al. (2004) have computed state-level aggregated values of wetland wealth using the data on wetland extent (from Directory of Wetlands, 1990) and economic values from Costanza et al. (1997) and Mitsch and Gosselink (2000). Thestudy ranksKarnataka,Gujarat, andAndhra Pradesh as the states having the highest wetland wealth, and Nagaland, Meghalaya and Sikkim with lowest wealth. More recently, a framework for accounting inland wetland ecosystems for selected indian states has been proposedbyKumar (2012). Thestudyusesbenefittransfer method to determine the impacts of physical area lossesofwetlands inGujarat, JammuandKashmir,Kerala,RajasthanandWestBengal.Value estimates from 18 wetlands have been used todevelopameta-regressionmodel tofinallycompute the loss of per capita wetland wealth for 1991 – 2001. The study concludes that the State of Jammu and Kashmir had the maximum wealth lossper capita (US$211.83or` 9532 at 2010 exchange rate), and an average loss of ` 520 (US$11.57at2010exchange rate) in theotheridentifiedstates.A studyonecosystemdegradationand biodiversity loss in indian Sunderbans assessed the damage to be worth `6.2billion (US$0.14billion) annually at 2009 prices, equivalent to 4.8 per cent of the region’s GDP (World Bank, 2014).

An analysis of aforementioned studies indicates that economic valuation of wetlands in india is an emergingfieldandisgraduallyevolvingtowardsaddressing management and policy related issues. Some of the trends that can be discerned are as follows:

17

• Thenumberofwetlandswhereineconomicvaluation studies have been conducted is small considering the overall wetland extent in the country. in terms of wetland types, high altitude wetlands of Himalayas, human-made tanks, saltpans, reefsandmudflats have been underemphasized. The Deccan Peninsular region and the west coast have limited studies as compared to other regions.

• Amajorityofthestudieshavefocusedonassessing monetary values of wetland ecosystem serviceswithanobjectiveofdemonstrating their contribution to the local or regional economy. There is limited use of economic valuation studies in decision-making contexts.

• In termsofecosystemservices,onecan inferan emphasis on provisioning services followed by cultural services. Regulating services have received almost limited attention. Valuation of hydrological functions of wetlands, inparticular (forexample,floodcontrol, water regime regulation) needs to be taken up on a priority.

• There is adistinctpreference for revealedpreference based approaches (market prices, shadow prices). This is commensurate with the focus on provisioning services, as most of the wetland products can be linked to prices in some form. Contingent valuation follows next in terms of application; however, the theoretical rigour varies across the studies. A good emphasis can also be seen on use of Travel Cost Methods to assess the recreational benefitsderived fromwetlands.Methodologieswhich require validation of ecological relationships for determining ecosystem services (e.g. production function, damage cost and replacement cost) in general have been underemphasized.Again, thisfinding is relatedto the observation of lesser emphasis placed on valuation of regulating services of wetlands. Very few valuation studies involve assessment of trade-offs.

• Limitedefforthasbeenapplied toextrapolatethe values to obtain national scale implications of loss of wetland biodiversity and ecosystem services values.

Gaps and challenges

Application of economics based approaches for wetland conservation and management in india is a growing researchfield.Muchof theemphasis stillis on valuation of provisioning and cultural services ofwetlands,with relatively lessereffortplacedonregulating services. There is also a pressing need to graduate to application end of the research spectrum, wherein valuation of wetland ecosystem services can be contextualized within a policy or decision-making framework.

Valuation of wetlands needs to take into account a number of ecological and socio-economic considerations. Ecological considerations with respect to valuation include reference to systems dynamics, complexities and resilience characteristics. Wetland ecosystems being complex, highly interconnected with non-linear interactions between variables, coupled with stochastic influences, indicate that it isnearly impossibleto classify ecosystem services into independent conditions and processes for valuation (Costanza and Folke, 1997). Focusing on valuation of single elements or functions may obscure synergistic properties (Vatn,2000). Identificationofecosystemservices is also confounded by at least two key system properties related to scale and system dynamics. Not all wetland ecosystem services are important at the same scale. For example, provisioning services of wetlands are important at the wetland site scale, whereas the regulation functionmayemergesignificantat a riverbasinscale. Habitats for waterbirds mostly emerge at flywayscaleswhich linkvarious sites. Taking intoaccount the scale at which service delivery takes place is a practical challenge.

Based on sociological considerations, there is a need to build in participation and deliberation in valuation of wetlands. Values, in whatever units, emerge from interactions with systems, both people with nature as well as nature with people and value formation therefore is an ongoing process. This perspective yields challenges to commensurability as well as static view of ecosystems as existing in equilibrium state. institutions serve to enhance the relationship with environment through enabling collective decision-making rather than reducing them to individual, independently optimizing units. Enriching valuation

18

methods with institutional approaches and deliberations will make assessment outcomes more relevant from management and decision-making perspectives.

Rigorousassessmentof theeffectsofecosystemchanges on ecosystem services calls for application of integrated ecological-economic modelling, which can capture various systemic attributes and their socio-economic linkages and can lead to solutions that can balance the conservation-development trade-offs.Addressing thresholdeffects inwetlandecosystems which can stimulate health and well-being consequences remains an area for future development.

Relevance of TII for wetland management

The analysis presented in the previous sections reinforces that mainstreaming wetlands in sectoral developmentalprogramminghasbeenamajorchallenge in India, limiting theeffectivenessof

managementefforts taken for conservationandwise use of these ecosystems till date. A narrow appreciation of wetland functioning often leads to their use for a limited set of ecosystem services, mostly provisioning services, while impairing their ability to provide regulating and cultural services.

The TEEB framework is a structured approach to make values of wetlands visible to society to aid informed decision-making and mainstreaming (TEEB,2010). Thefirst step, recognizingecosystemservices values, involves making stakeholders awareof thevalues in thefirstplace. Inplaceswhere policy decisions and investments impact, or are likely to impact wetlands functioning, demonstrating values helps in decision-making that takes into account the full range of ecosystem services and biodiversity values, rather than a smaller subset which is considered by markets as private goods. The third stage, capturing ecosystem values, refers to use of mechanisms to incorporate values of wetlands ecosystems through

Map 3.1. Locations of TII pilot sites

19

altered price signals or incentive mechanisms. The framework can be used to improve awareness of ecosystem service values, consequences of sectoral programming, and options that exist to addressconservation–development trade-offs. Theframework is particularly useful in demonstrating the inter-relationship between wetland ‘values’ andsocietalobjectivesofwater, foodandclimatesecurity, to propagate the idea of wetlands as ‘natural capital’ (Russi et al., 2012).

The following policy and decision-making contexts were identifiedas suited forapplicationofeconomic approaches to assessment of ecosystem services values of indian wetlands:

• Economiccase for investment inwetlandrestoration.

• Integrationofwetlands in landuseplanningand regulation.

Table 3.1: Features of TII pilot sites

• Wetlandsand integratedwater resourcesmanagement.

• Property rightsand improvingdistributionofcostsandbenefits.

• Useofmarketbased instruments for supportingwetland wise use.

• Financingwetlandconservationandmanagement.

Followingscreeningofprojectproposals fromanopen call, nine wetlands and wetland complexes were identifiedaspilot siteswherein theaforementioned themes were being addressed. An overview of wetland types, ecosystem services assessed and decision-making contexts is presented in Table 3.1 and locations depicted in Map 3.1 (see page 19). The following chapter highlights the lessons learnt from thepilotprojectsfor each of these policy and decision making contexts.

20

Wetland Wetland type Ecosystem Services Assessed Policy and decision making context

Chilika, Odisha l l l l l l l l l

Loktak, Manipur l l l l l l l

Kanwar, Bihar l l l l l l l

Little Rann of Kachchh, Gujarat

l l l l

Ashtamudi, Kerala l l l l l

Ousteri, Puducherry and Tamil Nadu

l l l l l

Wular Lake, Jammu & Kashmir

l l l l l l

Ken,UttarPradesh l l l l

MangrovesofGujarat l l l l l

inla

nd

Coas

tal

Food

Fibr

e an

d Fu

el

Fres

hwat

er

Mod

erat

ion

of w

ater

reg

imes

Eros

ion

prev

enti

on

inla

nd n

avig

atio

n

Pollutioncontrolanddeto xification

Eros

ion

prot

ecti

on

Gro

undw

ater

Rec

harg

e

Recr

eati

on

Spec

ies

habi

tat

Wet

land

res

tora

tion

Land

use

pla

nnin

g an

d re

gula

tion

Wet

land

s an

d in

tegr

ated

wat

er

reso

urce

s m

anag

emen

t

Prop

erty

rig

hts

Use ofmarketbasedinstruments

Fina

ncin

g

4. Integrating value of wetlands in planning and decision-making

• Thebenefitsofwetland restorationoutweigh itscosts even when a sub-set of ecosystem services and biodiversity values are taken into account.

• Managingwetlands foranarrow rangeofecosystemservices is aneconomically inefficientdecision. The fullrange of biodiversity and ecosystem service values of wetlands should be considered in water and land use planning.

• Forecological restoration to translate into livelihoodbenefits,dimensionsof socialequityand fairness indistributionof costsandbenefitsneed tobe factored inplanning processes.

• Incentivebasedmechanismscancomplement regulatoryapproaches for achieving wetland conservation and wise use.

• Resourcegaps for fundingwetlandmanagementcanbesubstantially reduced if convergence opportunities with development sector investmentsareeffectivelyutilized.

Wetland restoration

Wise use and removing the pressures leading to adverse change in wetland ecological character are best practices for ensuring that these ecosystems continue to provide their wide ranging biodiversity and ecosystem services values. However, in situations wherein wetland structure and functioning have been adversely affected, restoration is an importantopportunityfor the society to recoverandenhancebenefitsfrom these ecosystems. Wetland restoration involves implementing actions that promote a return to previous state, or improve ecosystem functioning, without necessarily seeking return to a pre-disturbance stage. Successful wetland restoration involves three principal dimensions, namely utilization of native wetland species in characteristic assemblages, integration of wetland functioning within wider landscape scale planning, and reduction or elimination of drivers of wetland degradation (SER, 2004).

Restorationcosts, itseffectivenessandecologicaland socio-economic outcomes, are ecosystem and site-specific.Availableevidences indicate thatthe cost of restoration of coastal wetlands such as coral reefs is substantially higher than other wetlands. Restoration can be achieved through ‘passive interventions’, which remove adverse pressures (for example, by banning unsustainable fishingpractices),or through ‘active interventions’(as restoring hydrological regimes). in several instances, it isdifficult to restorebiodiversityandecosystem services values associated with natural ecosystems as thresholds of irreversibility may have already been breached.

Restorationentailsfinancial resources.Costsofrestorationand itspotentialbenefitsare importantconsiderations forallocatingfinances for restorationprojects. TII included threestudieswhereincostsandbenefitsofwetland restorationwereassessed.in all these studies, despite taking into account onlya sub-setofecosystemservices, thebenefitsof restoration outweigh the restoration costs.

21

Flamingo nests, Flamingo City, Kachchh, Gujarat

Late

Ash

win

Pom

al

Case 1: Restoration of Lake Chilika, Odisha

Chilika is a brackish water lagoon spanning 1,165 km2 along the east coastline of the state of Odisha. Thediverseanddynamicassemblageoffish, invertebrateandcrustaceanspeciesprovides thebasisof richfishery,whichgeneratesover6per centof the state’s foreignexchangeearningsandsupportslivelihoodsof0.2millionfishers. In1981, considering its richbiodiversityvalueandsocio-economicsignificance,ChilikawasdesignatedasaWetlandof International Importance (RamsarSiteunder theConvention on Wetlands) by the Government of india.

During 1950 – 2000, Chilika rapidly degraded due to increasing siltation from catchments and a variety of anthropogenic activities, which choked the lagoon’s connection with the Bay of Bengal. Between1985/86and1998/99, theannualfish landingscrashed from8600MT to1702MT.Proliferation of shrimp culture led to gradual breakdown of traditional resource management systemsand increased livelihoodconflicts. In1993,Chilikawasultimatelyplacedunder theRamsarConvention’s Montreux Record.

The Government of Odisha created the Chilika Development Authority (CDA) in 1991 as the nodal agency to undertake measures for ecological restoration. The Authority is chaired by the Chief Minister, Government of Odisha, and has membership of Secretaries of all concerned departments, political representativesaswell as representativesoffisher communities. In2000,anewmouth to theBayofBengal was cut open following recommendations from modelling studies and stakeholder consultations. A comprehensive lake basin management programme is being implemented since then, incorporating componentsof catchment revegetation,maintaininghydrological regimes, sustainablefisheries,livelihood improvement and communication and outreach. Wetland monitoring programme has been put in place to comprehensively assess the state of ecological character, and recommend necessary adaptation measures.

22

Lake Chilika

WIS

A P

hoto

Lib

rary

Restoration measures have led to several positive changes in Chilika’s biodiversity and ecosystem services. A salinity gradient within the lagoon has been re-established. The average fish landingduring2001–14wasnearly 13,000 MT. The irrawaddy Dolphin population has increased from 89 to 158 individuals between 2003 and 2014, along with an increase in habitat use, improved breeding and dispersal, and decline in mortality rates. The sea grass meadows have expanded from 20 km2 in 2000 to 80 km2 at present. improvement of Chilika habitat, in particular the increase in dolphins, has led to a resurgence of wetland tourism. The annual number of tourists visiting the wetland during 2000 – 2014 averaged 0.3 million – an increase of over 60 per cent as compared to arrivals during 1994 – 1999. Based on the positive changes in ecological character, Chilika was delisted from Montreux Record of the Ramsar Convention and the intervention recognized with the Ramsar Wetland Conservation Award.

Of thecurrentbundleofecosystemservices,fisheries, inlandnavigationanduseofaquaticvegetationwerevaluedusingavailablemarketprices. Theannualflowsofbenefits from thesewereassessed tobe worth ` 1463 million, ` 34 million and ` 14 million respectively. The annual economic value of wetland tourism, derived using individual travel cost method, was estimated to be ` 3,379 million. Non-usebenefitswereestimated tobe` 167 million per annum.

Tosustain thesebenefits, since its inception in1991,CDAhas incurredprogrammaticexpensesof`1608million. This translates intoanaverageannual investment (adjustedat5%rateof interest)of `1028.9million.Usinga select setofecosystemservices,namely increase infish landingsandrecreationalbenefits, thebenefit cost ratiowasassessed to15.44. The roleofCDAasan institution tocoordinate restoration with participation of stakeholders is also underscored.

Ecological restoration of Chilika has also promoted local-level transformation in attitudes towards wetlands. ThecaseofecotourismatManglajodi standsoutasa community initiative for creatingwin-win opportunities for wetland conservation as well as securing livelihoods of dependent communities. Manglajodivillage fringes themarshyenvironmentofwetland’snorthern shorelines.Shallowdepth,plentiful of food and varied vegetation makes this area an ideal habitat for migrating water birds. ThefishersofManglajodi,oncederiving livelihood from illegalwaterbirdhunting,presently sustainthemselves on community managed wetland ecotourism venture under the aegis of their society, ‘Sri SriMahavirPakshiSurakshyaSamiti (SSMPSS)’.Waterbirdhunting inManglajodiflourished inthe 1980s and 90s. However, in 1999, when the contours of Chilika restoration were being laid out, controlling illegalhuntingofwaterbirdswas identifiedasamajor issue.CDA,with the supportof localNGO ‘Wild Orissa’, initiated a community-based ecotourism programme in order to promote ecotourism asanalternate livelihoodoption.Asapartof theseefforts,establishmentofSSMPSSwas facilitated in1999.CDAprovidedsupport for constructionofanofficespaceandwatchtowers,provided threeboatsand other bird watching equipment to cater to the tourists, and undertook training of local guides in bird identificationandnaturalhistory.

As the number of tourists visiting Chilika soared after the hydrological restoration, the number of footfalls toManglajodi (whichnextonly toNalabana, consistently supports largewaterbird

23

4000

3500

3000

2500

2000

1500

1000

500

0

-500

-1000

-1500

Re

sto

ratio

n b

en

efits

an

d c

osts

(M

illio

n/A

nn

um

)`

Tourism Fisheries Aquaticvegetation+inland

navigationRestoration

costs

congregation numbers) also increased. The community has since been making much higher and steady income from tourists interested in bird watching, than the income levels and risks associated with illegal water bird hunting. Presently, the area is visited by 5,000 tourists each year and stands out as one of the popular destinations for watching migratory water birds within a serene and scenic environment. Apart from direct economic benefits, the initiativehas resulted in improvedhabitatqualityofmigratorywaterbirds.Over50species of water birds have been recorded in this area, of which over 30 are migratory. Community members provide protection to nests and eggs, and promptly report any damage to the society members. The use of manual paddle boats helps maintain serenity of environment, and enriches nature-watching experience of the tourists.

Analysisof incomepatternsvalidates thedirectbenefitsaccrued to thecommunities.Asperassessments carried under Tii, annual household incomes have increased over 2.5 times in the last two decades (from ` 44,952 in 1995 to ` 1,12,460 at present), also bringing dignity in profession. Awards suchasPakshiBandhuPuraskar (2001)andBijuPatnaikPakshiMitra (2007)have instilledconfidence in the societymembers topursueandstrengthen their conservationefforts. TheTII studyatManglajodi recommends integrating such local solutions into thewider integratedmanagementplanningprocess toensure that thecommunities continue tobenefit fromanimproved environment, and to prevent their incremental gains being crowded out due to adverse anthropogenic impacts.

TII Study Title: Economics of Ecosystem Services and Biodiversity for Conservation and Sustainable Management of Inland Wetlands

Authors: Ritesh Kumar and Anita Chakraborty, Wetlands International South Asia, New Delhi

Case 2: Mangrove restoration in Gujarat

TheStateofGujarathasmore thandoubled itsmangrovecover since the1930s (from854km2 to 1,107 km2 in2013)owing togovernment’sefforts in restoringdegradedmangrovepatchesalongits 1,650 km coastline. The Tii study valued the contribution regenerated mangroves make towards inshorefisheriesandpreventionof coastalerosion.

Whencomparedwithcreekswithnomangroves,thedailycatchofartisanalfisherswasfoundtobe 4.23 kg higher in creeks with natural mangroves, 3.96 kg higher in creeks having enriched plantation and0.94kghigherincreekswhereinmudflatshavebeenplantedwithmangroves.Analysisof26yearsofdataonoff-shorecommercialfisheriesalsoindicatessignificantincreaseincatchofmangrove-dependentspecies.Theannualcontributionofmangroveplantationtocommercialfisherywas estimated to be 51 tons of demersal, 45 tons of crustaceans and 11.5 tons of mollusks. Coastal

24

120,000

100,000

80,000

60,000

40,000

20,000

0

Annual H

ousehold

Incom

e(

) `

Waterbird hunting

Ecotourism

Fishing

1995 2014

25

60

50

40

30

20

10

0Off-shore fisheries Inshore fisheries Land accretion

Econom

ic V

alu

es

(M

illio

n/a

nnum

)`

areas planted with mangroves also exhibited higher rates of accretion leading to net increase in land area by 2,206 ha during 1990 – 2013.

The annual monetary value of the two ecosystem services was assessed to be ` 95.5 million. When mangroves were planted using direct sowing method, the twoecosystemservicesbenefitswere estimated to fully cover plantation costs within 15 years even with 5 per cent rate of discount. Thestudy recommends takinga long-termviewonmangrove restorationprojects, andadopting low-cost plantation techniques.

TII Study Title: Accounting for Regenerated Forests: Evaluating the Flow of Ecosystem Services from Regenerated Mangroves Compared to Original Mangrove Forests

Author: Saudamini Das, Institute of Economic Growth, New Delhi

Mangroves in Gulf of Khambhat, Gujarat

Saud

amin

i D

as

Located 34 km northwest of Srinagar City, Wular is the largest wetland in Kashmir Valley, spanning 160 km2 with 18 km2 as associated marshes. Wular and its marshes moderate hydrological regimes of the valley byabsorbinghighsummerflowsand gradually releasing water during winters. Migrating water birds of the Central Asian Flyway use the wetland as habitat for feeding and roosting. Communities living around thewetlandharvestfish,waterchestnut, and lotus rhizomes for their livelihoods. in 1990, Wular was designated as a Ramsar Site.

Wular has witnessed a massive shrinkage in area over the last century, reducing from 213 km2 in 1911 to 130 km2 in 2011, mainly due to drainage of marshes, siltation and plantation of willows to meet the fuelwood needs of the local people. This has impaired natural functioning of the wetland, particularly its ability to moderate water regimes and support livelihoods of dependent communities.

A management plan for wetland restoration formulated in 2007 by Wetlands international, recommended augmentation of water holding capacity by removal of willows from the wetland fringes and selective dredging of heavily silted upper areas. The Tii study looked into economic feasibilityof theproposal to removewillows.Benefitandcostflowswereestimated formajorstakeholder categories. Two management scenarios: S1 (reduction in areas under willows in wetland’s southern fringes by 27%) and S2 (complete removal of willows from wetland’s southern fringes) were compared with business as usual course of action (no removal). impacts of interventions on hydropowerproduction, aquaticvegetation,fisheries,floods, carbonsequestration, andwood forbusiness processes were considered.

The study found Net Percent Value (NPV) of willow removal to be substantial for the two intervention scenarios as compared with business as usual. At 8 per cent discount rate, the NPV for scenarios S1 and

Case 3: Willow removal for restoration of Wular Lake, Jammu & Kashmir

26

45000

40000

35000

30000

25000

20000

15000

10000

5000

0

MP

V (

100 y

ears

, 5%

dis

count ra

te)

Scenario 1 (Original Plan) Scenario 2 (Amended Plan)

Wular Lake, Kashmir

WIS

A P

hoto

Lib

rary

S2 were ` 15,104.27 million and ` 26,211.2 million respectively, thus validating the need to restore water holding capacity of Wular from an economic efficiencyperspective.Aneedto progress wetland restoration in a time bound manner is recommended by the study.

TII Study Title: Economic Feasibility of Willow Removal from Wular Lake, Jammu and Kashmir, India

Author: Rahul Kaul, Wildlife Trust of India, New Delhi

Case 4: Balancing multiple uses in Kanwar Jheel, Bihar

Kanwar Jheel ispartofanextensivefloodplaincomplex formed in the lower reachesofGandak-Kosiinterfan in North Bihar. Located at a distance of 21 km from Begusarai town, Kanwar is the largest of several shallow permanent and ephemeral wetlands formed between River Burhi Gandak and paleo-channel of River Bagmati. The wetland complex has a highly variable inundation regime, expanding to nearly 6700 ha during monsoon and shrinking to 600 ha during summers, exposing nearly 2600 ha of grasslands, large parts of which are used for agriculture.

Kanwar is themainstayof livelihoodsof22,000 farmerandfisherhouseholds.Highsoilmoisture,better water availability and the highly fertile silt received from the riverine inundations underpin resourceproductivity.Kanwarhelps reduceflood risks for theadjoining settlementsbyactingasbufferandaccommodating significantproportionof local runoffandbankflowsofRiverBurhiGandak.The wetland teems with water birds in the winters, and is one of the important congregation areas in North Bihar, particularly for migrating ducks and coots. The island of Jaimangalagarh located in its southernparthashigharchaeological significance.Considering itshighwaterbirddiversity, since1989, Kanwar has been designated as a Sanctuary by the name of ‘Kanwar Lake Bird Sanctuary’ under the provisions of indian Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972.

Despite suchhighecological andsocio-economic significance,managementofKanwarhas receivedlittleattention in the regionaldevelopmentalprogramming. Thewetlandcomplexhasbeensubjectto extensive hydrological regime fragmentation and conversion for permanent agriculture. This

Land use planning and regulation

Anthropogenic land use is a critical driver of terrestrial conditions thataffect structureandfunctioning of wetlands. Wetlands are expressions of geophysical, ecological and social histories of the landscapes in which they are situated. The terrestrial and aquatic components of landscapes are intricately linked through exchange of water, nutrientsandspecies. Thus, theobjectiveofsecuring wetland biodiversity and ecosystem services values can only be met if management of wetlands is embedded within the management of broader landscape.

Wetlands are often managed to deliver provisioning services (for example, using wetlands for food production and water supply) to meet landscape scale food and water security needs. However, such management compromises the ability of these ecosystems to deliver regulating services (asfloodbuffers, groundwater rechargezones), cultural services (religious and aesthetic

values related to wetlands) and provide habitats to biodiversity. it is increasingly recognized that full range of biodiversity and ecosystem services values provided naturally by wetlands should be considered in landscape scale development programming to ensure that multiple management objectivesaremetand theirecological charactermaintained. The Wetland (Conservation and Management) Rules, 2010 require that the zone of influenceofwetlands isdefinedandmeasurestaken to ensure that land use change within this zonedoesnotadverselyaffectwetland functioning.

Tii looked into economic dimensions of land use change and wetland functioning in the case of Kanwar Jheel (Bihar) and Little Rann of Kachchh (Gujarat). Thestudies indicate thatmanagingwetlands for a narrow range of ecosystem services iseconomically inefficient.Pathways for factoringin wetland ecosystem services and biodiversity values in landscape planning have been suggested.

27

has resulted in near-complete decimationoffisheries, reducedbiodiversity habitats, especially of migratory water birds and impaired ability of wetland complex to moderate hydrological regimes. Shrinking resource base has accentuatedconflictsbetweenfarmersandfishers.

Tii study at Kanwar aimed at economic analysis of trade-offsassociatedwith landusetransformation and its distributional impacts. Three land use scenarios, corresponding to business as usual with peak inundation covering only 50 per cent of wetland area (BAU), situation in1980swherein70 per cent area is inundated (SEM 1), and 1970s situation with the entire wetland inundation (SEM2) were modelled for four ecosystem services, namely capture and culture fisheries,wetlandagricultureandgroundwater recharge. Economic analysis indicated that when comparedwithSEM2,BAUscenariocorrespondedwithabenefitof` 12.7 million worth wetland agriculture, but at a loss of ` 47.8 million worthcapturefisheries,`26.3millionworthculturefisheries,` 8 million worth aquatic vegetation and ` 9.6 million worth groundwater recharge value. Thus, conversion of a multifunctional wetland to a predominantlyagriculture landscapewasaneconomically inefficientdecision.

In termsofdistributionalequity, restoration toSEM1andSEM2scenario is likely to imposesignificantopportunity costs for farming community. Keeping in view the overall technical feasibility and costs

28

20.00

10.00

(10.00)

(20.00)

(30.00)

(40.00)

(50.00)

(60.00)

–

Change in E

conom

ic V

alu

e o

ver

SE

M2

(m

illio

n)

`

Wetlandagriculture

Capturefishery

Culture fishery Fuelwood Ground waterrecharge

20.00

10.00

(10.00)

(20.00)

(30.00)

(40.00)

(50.00)

(60.00)

–

Change in e

conom

ic v

alu

e o

ver

SE

M2

(m

illio

n)

`

Fisher Agriculture Farmer(Large)

Agriculture Farmer(Small)

Agriculture Farmer(Merginal)

Capture Fisheries

Fuelwood

Culture Fisheries

Ground water recharge

Wetland Agriculture

Kanwar Jheel, Bihar

WIS

A P

hoto

Lib

rary

of achieving each of the scenarios, the study recommends restoration of wetland regime towards SEM1 condition, while building in alternate livelihoods options for marginal and small farmers.

TII Study Title: Economics of Ecosystem Services and Biodiversity for Conservation and Sustainable Management of Inland Wetlands

Authors: Ritesh Kumar and Kalpana Ambastha, Wetlands International South Asia, New Delhi

Case 5: Little Rann of Kachchh, Gujarat

The Little Rann of Kachchh (LRK) is an extensive salt marsh in the state ofGujarat,spanning3,570km2 between the Great Rann and the Gulf of Kachchh. Over 30 per cent of country’s inland salt is produced here. The region is also the main source of export of Ginger prawn (Metapaeneus kutchensis) and abounds with spectacular biological diversity. LRK is anotifiedprotectedarea.

Tii study on LRK focused on assessing itskeyproductionsystems(saltproduction,prawnfisheryandtourism)andelicitingeconomicestimatesofuseandnon-usevalues.TheannualflowofeconomicbenefitsfromLRKwereassessedtobe` 1,517 million. These include `410millionworthprawnfishery,` 694 million worth salt production, and ` 276 million worth recreational tourism, and the rest resulting from non-use values. The direct use values sustain livelihoods of over 12,000 households.

The economic values are contingent on LRK’s dynamic hydrological regime created by its three principal sourcesofwater inflows,namelycatchment runoff (21%), rainfall (52%)andseawater (27%).increasing upstream storages and blocking of creeks impose high risk to maintenance of this variable water regime, thereby threatening ecosystem services and biodiversity values. The study calls for balancing upstream land uses with ecological and hydrological functioning of LRK.

TII Study Title: Economic Valuation of Landscape Level Wetland Ecosystem and its Services in Little Rann of Kachchh, Gujarat

Author: A.M. Dixit, Centre for Environment and Social Concerns, Ahmedabad, Gujarat

29

Econom

ic V

alu

e(

Mill

ion/a

nnum

)`

800

700

600

500

400

300

200

100

0Prawn fishery Salt Tourism Non-use

Pelicans in Little Rann of Kachchh

A. M

. Dix

it

Wetlands and integrated water resources management

The presence of water, permanently or seasonally, provides the conditions for development of soil, microorganisms and plant and animal communities, whichdifferentiatewetlandcharacteristics fromterrestrial or pure aquatic habitats. For most wetland types, precipitation accounts for a small fractionof theoverallwater regime, themajoritybeing the surface and groundwater exchange from rivers and streams and sea in the case of coastal wetlands. Wetland functioning is therefore predicated on the extent to which water of right quantity, timing and quality is allocated for these ecosystems within wider basin and coastal zone level planning.

integrated Water Resources Management (iWRM), a process which promotes coordinated development of land, water and related resources for maximizing economic and social welfare in an equitable manner without compromising ecosystem sustainability, is recognized within india’s national water policy as framework for managing water resources. implementation, however, is limited to protecting wetlands of high biodiversity or provisioning services value through building in an allocation of water for ecosystem functioning.

A more meaningful integration can be achieved by taking into account water-related ecosystem services (suchasbuffer forextremeevents,water rechargeandpurification, silt andnutrienttraps) while considering options for various watermanagementobjectives targeted throughiWRM. Ecosystem services need to be factored in as ‘natural solutions’ for water management planning and decision-making. Equally important is to consider implication of water management on wetland functioning through assessment of hydrological regime linkages between various parts of river basins and coastal zones. it is vital that wetlands are recognized as sources of water rather than as competing users.

Within Tii, the aspect of integration of wetland ecosystem service values in water management was the focus of studies in Loktak Lake, Manipur and Ken River, Madhya Pradesh. The case of Loktak demonstratesways inwhich trade-offs resultingfrommodificationofnaturalwater regimescanbeaddressed by considering full range of wetland biodiversity and ecosystem service values. Similarly, the study on River Ken underlines the need toconsider interconnectednessofflowregimes with ecosystem services values in river basin scale planning and decision-making.

Case 6: Water allocation policy for Loktak Lake, Manipur

ThefloodplainwetlandsofManipurRiver known as Loktak Lake complex, encompassing Loktak, Pumlen, ikop, Kharung, Khoidum and other satellite wetlands, are lifeline of the North-Eastern state of Manipur. Spanning over 469 km2 in Bishnupur and Thoubal Districts, these wetlands are the largest sourceoffish,edibleplantsand freshwater; underpinning water and food security for a large population dependent on wetland resources for sustenance. Phumdi-

30

600

500

400

300

200

100

0Fisheries Aquatic

vegetationFreshwater Nutrient

retentionNon-use

Eco

no

mic

Va

lue

Mill

ion

/an

nu

m)

(`

31

floatingmassesofvegetation-arecharacteristic featuresof thewetlandcomplex.Keibul Lamjao in thesouthern part of Loktak has a single contiguous mass of phumdi area spanning around 40 km2, which serves as the only known natural habitat of the globally endangered deer Rucervus eldii (Manipur Brow–antleredDeer, locally calledSangai), andhasbeennotifiedasaNationalPark since1975. In1990, Loktak was designated by Government of india as a Wetland of international importance under the Ramsar Convention.

Seasonalfluctuations inwater levelsandvariable inundation regimeenablefloodattenuation,sedimentflushingandnutrientuptakebyphumdi. The natural hydrological regimes have, however, been transformedover lastdecadesbywater resourcesdevelopmentprojects.Constructionof Ithaibarrage in 1984 entailing regulation of lake levels for hydropower generation converted a naturally fluctuatingwetland intoa reservoir leading to inundationofperipheral areas, lossofmigratoryfisheries, reductionanddegradationofNationalParkhabitat, anddecline inwaterquality.Ofparticular concern has been rapid proliferation of phumdi in the central sector, which prior to 1984 was very limited. Loktak Development Authority, constituted by the state government in 1986 for lake management has recently implemented a partial restoration programme, particularly aimed at restoration of open water area and reduce siltation. The core issue of balancing water allocation for hydropower and irrigation with ecological needs of wetland functioning is yet unaddressed. Tii included Loktak Lake as a case study for identifying pathways for integrating wetland functioning in water resources planning and decision-making.

Thebenefitsderived fromfisheries, aquaticvegetation, supplyofwater forhydropowergenerationandnutrient retention by phumdi were assessed to be worth ` 1,277 million annually. The current pricing mechanism for hydropower does not factor in Loktak waters as an input to production processes and therebydoesnotprovideefficient resource scarcity signals. The impactsof inefficientwatermanagement are ultimately realized in terms of livelihood consequences for wetland communities and restoration costs borne by state exchequer.

Loktak Lake, Manipur

WIS

A P

hoto

Lib

rary

Case 7: Ecosystem services of River Ken

RiverKen, amajornorth-flowing tributaryofRiverYamuna, is an inter-state riverbetweenMadhyaPradeshandUttarPradesh. The riverhas relatively lowanthropogenicpressureonaccountof limitedurban and industrial development within its basin. The river hosts the Panna Tiger Reserve (PTR) and a gharial (Gavialis gangeticus) sanctuary, andsupportshighfishdiversity.

UnderTII, a rapidassessmentofKenRiverwas takenup tohighlightecosystemservicevalues foraflowdependentecosystem.A sub-setofvaluesprovisioningandcultural valueswereassessedusingtools of market and non-market valuation.

Ascenarioanalysiswasconducted tomeetvariousecological andhumanobjectivesofwatermanagement. The analysis indicated that prioritizing water for hydropower would lead to impacts on park habitat, whereas mimicking natural regimes would lead to considerable reduction in hydropower. Amultipleobjective ledwatermanagementperformed thebest towardsmeetingecological andsocialobjectives,however,waterallocation forhydropowerproductionwouldneed tobe reducedduringwinters. Theeconomicassessment indicates thepossibilityofnarrowingwater resourcesconflictbybasin-scalewatermanagement, andsupplementinghydropowerdeficitduringwinters throughalternate sources.

TII Study Title: Economics of Ecosystem Services and Biodiversity for Conservation and Sustainable Management of Inland Wetlands

Authors: Ritesh Kumar and Akoijam Yaiphaba Meetei, Wetlands International South Asia, New Delhi

32

Ken River, Madhya Pradesh

Brij

Gop

al

High quality sand extracted from Ken River, is preferred and extensively used in many districts of UttarPradesh.Asper the study,` 25,000 million worth of sand is extracted from leased mines in downstream reaches. An additional `750millionaccrues tocommunities living in theadjacentvillages from thisactivity. The riveralso supportshighfishdiversityofwhichninespeciesare rare,endangeredandvulnerable, andsome restrictedonly toupstream reaches.Contribution fromfisherieshas been estimated at about ` 0.2–1.7million in fourdifferentdownstreamstretches fromBanda toChilla Ghat. The river also plays an important role in sustaining ecosystem services and biodiversity value of Panna Tiger Reserve, assessed to be worth ` 3,690 million per annum.

Ecosystemservicesof rivers, asKen, are intricately linked toflow regimes. Thestudy recommendscareful consideration of these interlinkages in planning for river resources development.

TII Study Title: Integrating the Economics of Wetland Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services in Management of Water Resources of River Ken

Authors: Brij Gopal and D.K. Marothia, Centre for Inland Waters in South Asia, Jaipur, Rajasthan

Property rights and improving distribution of costs and benefits

Wetlands, owing to their inherent complex characteristicsasmultiplicityand jointproductionof severalecosystemservicesbenefits, areinfluencedbya rangeofproperty rightsheldby communities as well as the state. These havea significantbearingonaccess,useandmanagement of wetlands. The rights also underpin and determine the motivations and institutional structures under which stakeholders value and utilize ecosystem services and biodiversity, ultimately influencing thepossibilityofachievingwiseuse. Lackof clearlydefinedproperty rightsand institutionalfitwithecosystem functioningcan accentuate wetland degradation by limiting managementeffectiveness. Thecoexistenceofcontrasting individual and communal rights to wetlandshas led to resourceuseconflicts inseveral circumstances.

including social fairness and improvement of community livelihoodsasobjectivesofwetlandmanagement, along with those related to ecological features, is a key step towards improved sharing ofcostsandbenefits related topolicydecisionslinked with water and wetlands. Mapping stakeholders and institutions with ecosystem servicesandeliciting stakeholderdifferentiatedbenefitandcost sharing,provides theanalyticalframework for assessing social fairness dimensions, particularlyecosystemservices trade-offs.

Tii included assessment of distributive aspects of wetland ecosystem services and biodiversity values in the case studies on Lake Chilika and Kanwar Jheel (results summarized in Case 4). The studies indicate that management plans aimed at ecological restoration are likely to have limited impact on livelihoods and stakeholder engagement, if explicit consideration of property rights and restorationcostsandbenefits isnot factoredwithinplanning processes.

33

Case 8: Improving livelihoods of fishers of Chilika, Odisha

Forgenerations, thefishersofChilikamanaged lagoonfisheriesby putting in place an informal but nuanced management regime designed on their indigenous understandingoffishinggrounds,fish recruitmentandmigrationpatterns and crafts and gear specialization of various sub-castes. introduction of capital intensive prawn culture in 1984 – 85 prompted entry of non-fishers in the lagoon,graduallyedgingout theprimaryfishersand ultimately leading to near completedisruptionof communitymanagedfisheries. ThePrimaryFisherCooperativeSocieties (PFCS)put inplace toprotect the interestsoffishersweremoribundbymid-1990sdue toweakcapacitiesandeconomicnon-viability.Amajorityoffishers fell indebt trapof the scrupulousmoney lenderswhoused theirpower tobuy thefishcatchat rates substantially lower than themarkets.

While the hydrological intervention of 2000 was able to restore the necessary ecological conditions for rejuvenationoffisheries, thekey to its sustenance lies in thedesignof institutionalarrangementsand mechanisms through which various stakeholders gain access and control over the resource base. Socio-economic surveysconducted in2008 indicated thatdespiteanear seven-fold increase infishcatch, theper capita incomeoffishers increasedbyonlyone-third, amajority (85%)continued tobe in debt and there was nearly no change in access to basic amenities. With over 90 per cent of thefishcatchofover33,000fishers traded through1,300middlemen,a coercivemarket structurecontinued to prevail in Chilika.

34

45,000

40,000

35,000

30,000

25,000

20,000

15,000

10,000

5,000

0All catch through middlemen Present All catch through PFCS

An

nu

al H

ou

se

ho

ld R

eve

nu

e)

( `

Gross Revenue Net Revenue

f

Fishing in Chilika, Odisha

WIS

A P

hoto

Lib

rary

CDA responded to the situation by developing a Fisheries Resource Management Plan, focused on strengthening the role of PFCS in managing the catch. investments were made in improving the conditionof landingcentres, trainingcooperativemembers in sustainablefisheriesmanagement,providing iceboxes tofishers topreventdistress salesand infusingcapital so that thememberscouldsource loan from their own institutions rather than depending on middlemen.

TIIlookedintotheimpactofsuchinterventiononlivelihoodsoffishers.Datafromasub-setof106cooperatives indicated that strengthening the role of PFCS had increased gross annual value realization offisherhouseholdsby21percent.Theannualinterestoutgoondebtalsoreducedby13percentasoverone-fifthofthefisherswereabletosourceloanfromthesesocietiesinsteadofmiddlemen.Ifthecooperativesareabletomanagetheentirefishtrade,thegrossrevenuetoeachofthefisherhousehold is likely to be over 30 per cent higher than the situation in 2008, when the entire trade was controlledbymiddlemen.ThecaseofChilikafisheriesunderlinestheneedtobringinthegoalsrelatedto distributional equity within the framework of ecological restoration so as to ensure that livelihoods of the dependent communities are improved as an incentive for resource stewardship.

TII Study Title: Economics of Ecosystem Services and Biodiversity for Conservation and Sustainable Management of Inland Wetlands

Authors: Ritesh Kumar, Satish Kumar and Anita Chakraborty, Wetlands International South Asia, New Delhi

Market-based instruments and wise use

Based on the values people hold for their environment, important repercussions for ecosystemservicescould result justbymaking thelink between the economy and environment more explicit.Markets influence individualandsocietalproduction and consumption choices through prices. Market-based instruments can be used as support for wetland wise use by altering incentives related tovarious sectorswhich influenceecosystem functioning. Experience has shown that well designed market-based instruments can achieve environmental goals at less cost than conventional “command and control” approaches, while creating positive incentives for continual innovation and improvement.

Market-based instruments are being increasingly used to achieve environmental policy outcomes throughuseofefficientmarket signals,whichinternalizecostsandbenefitsassociatedwithpolicy decisions impacting environment. Taxes, fees and charges raise the cost of environmentally damaging actions, whereas subsidies reduce the costs of environment-friendly activities. Quantity based instruments set limit on use of resource and often lead to development of markets wherein user rights can be traded. Liability-based instruments assign responsibility for preventing and remediating

environmental damages to the responsible agents. Payment for ecosystem services has attracted increasing interest as a mechanism for translating external, non-market values of the environment into realfinancial incentives for local actors forservices provision. Wetland banking and water quality tradingpermits (UnitedStates), salinitycredits (Australia), and PES schemes (in Latin America, China and Japan) indicate the possibility of using market-based instruments for wetland management.

indian environment policy has predominantly built on regulatoryapproaches.Useofmarket-basedinstruments has been largely limited to pollution control, and more recently it has been branched into forestpolicy (CompensatoryAfforestationProgramme)andmanagementofmarinefisheries(incentives for seasonalfishingban). Thecontinuedloss and degradation of wetlands indicate the need to complement regulatory approaches with innovative market-based instruments to incentivize wise use. PES schemes in particular should be considered within the range of wetland management tools to create incentives for sustainable use of wetland resources. Market-based instruments can also serve as information raising instruments, creating important signalling andawarenesseffect.However, these instrumentsare relevant only when the underlying cause of

35

Case 9: Eco-labelling clam fisheries of Ashtamudi, Kerala

Short-necked clams form an important constituentoffisheriesin Ashtamudi, a palm-shaped estuary on the west coast of Kerala.Overhalfof thefisherieseconomy of Ashtamudi is attributed to clams alone. Besides contributing significantly to thelivelihoods of over 3,000 clam fishers, clamsalsoconstitutean important component of lakeecology, actingaseffectivebiofiltersand increasingnutrientsupply in the aquatic environment.

Ashtamudi clamharvestunderwentadecline in the1990smainlydue touseof indiscriminatefishingpractices. This promoted government agencies to enforce regulation of use of gear and imposing a fisheryban fromDecember toFebruary– thepeakbreedingseasonof the species. Thesemeasureshelped revive the resourceconsiderably, yeteconomicvalue realization tofishers remained low. Toassist communities in realizing higher value from a sustainably managed resource, a novel initiative to seekMarineStewardshipCouncil (MSC)Certification for the short-neckclamfisheryofAshtamudiwastakenup in2013.A studyoneconomicsof certificationwas takenupunderTII toassess theextenttowhich this interventionhasbenefitted the local communities, andassesspotential for replication.

Economicassessments indicated that thebenefit fromcertificationwasat least1.8 timeshigher thanits cost. it was also indicated that changing clam processing techniques (from selling clams in the form of boiled meat to whole clams) could yield an additional 75 per cent increase in revenue, bringing in substantial tangiblebenefits to thecommunities.

environmental degradation is ‘economic’, and internalization of environmental externalities, the likely solution.

Within Tii, use of market-based instruments was included in the design of studies on Ashtamudi

(Kerala) and Ousteri (shared between Puducherry and Tamil Nadu). Assessments in Ashtamudi indicate possibilities of enhancing incentive to wetland dependent communities by eco-labelling tools, whereas the need for PES based instrument is highlighted in the case of Ousteri.

36

600

500

400

300

200

100

0

Be

ne

fits

an

d c

osts

Mill

ion

/an

nu

m)

( `

Clams as boiled meat Whole clams

Benefits Costs

TII Study Title: Assessment of Eco-labelling as Tool for Conservation and Sustainable Use of Biodiversity in Ashtamudi Lake, Kerala (Southwest coast of India)

Author: K. Sunil Mohamed, Central Marine Fisheries Research Institute, Kochi, Kerala

Yellow Clams of Ashtamudi, Kerala

K. S

unil

Moh

amed

Case 10: Using market-based instruments for management of Ousteri

Ousteri, spanning about 800 hectaresacross theUnionTerritory of Puducherry and state of Tamil Nadu is the single largest freshwater resource in the region. The diverse habitats found here attract a number of migratory water birds, earning it the designation of a Bird Sanctuary by Puducherry and Tamil Nadu governments in 2008 and 2014 respectively. This protected area status is intended to secure the wetland habitat from anthropogenic pressures of encroachment, dumping of solid waste and increased human activity in a fragile area. However, such management has curtailed harvest of wetland resources for meeting livelihoodneeds. TII studyusedeconomicvaluationmethods toassess thebenefitsof restorationandidentifyfinancingoptions for supporting integratedsitemanagement.

WhenusevaluesofOusteri (from irrigationbenefitsand recreation)andnon-usevaluesareconsidered, the natural capital worth of the wetland is assessed to be ` 2.44 million per annum. Most of the people living around are willing to pay for the conservation of this wetland, considering this an opportunity to enhance their individual and societal welfare. The study recommends capturing

37

Va

lue

of

eco

no

mic

be

ne

fits

Mill

ion

/ a

nn

um

)(`

14

12

10

8

6

4

2

0Recreation Water for irrigation Non-use

Ousteri Lake, Puducherry

Rite

sh S

harm

a

Financing

Wetland conservation and management in india is primarilyfinancedasapartofbroaderenvironmentsectorpublic investments.Amajor shareof this ismadebyUnionGovernment.Considerationof thefull range of wetland biodiversity and ecosystem services values, supports the case of including wetland conservation and management as a part of broader sectoral development programming both at the level of union government as well as within states and union territories. Wetland restoration can be suitably prioritized to meet the societal water, foodandclimate securityobjectives, andincludedwithin thefinancing streams for theseobjectives.

All of the pilot studies indicate the role of wetlands as ‘societal capital’, supporting human well-being through their range of provisioning, regulating, cultural and supporting services. Presently, only small fraction of resources required to manage priority wetlands is available within the environment sector budgets. The available resources can be substantially increased if wetland management isfinancedon the ‘principlesofconvergence’ with development sector investments. Resources from private sector can also be tapped tofinancewetland restorationasaneffort towardsbuilding natural capital.

this value for supporting wetland management through use of ‘Payment for Ecosystem Services’, whichembeds incentives for the stakeholders toprotect thewetland inanefficient,equitableandsustainable basis in the coming years. Management approaches which incorporate stakeholder participation can minimize the transaction costs (such as monitoring cost) of wetland management.

The study recommends stakeholder involvement in wetland management, such as upstream industries (whicharewilling toparticipate in reducing theeffluentdischarge into thewetland)andneighbouringcommunitieswhocancollectivelyact in curbing illegalfishingandpoachingofwildanimalsandbirdsbyoutsiders in lieuofaccess tocertain importantecosystembenefits.

TII Study Title: Economic Valuation of Ecosystem Services: A Case Study of Ousteri Wetland, Puducherry

Authors: L. Venkatachalam and Zareena Begum, Madras Institute of Development Studies and Madras School of Economics, Chennai

38

5. Conclusions and Recommendations

An understanding and appreciation of values and benefitsofwetlands is central todevelopmentofinclusive management approach which secures wise use of these ecosystems. Systematic recognition, valuation and capture of wetland biodiversity and ecosystem services values are the building blocks of such an approach.

The implications for an ecosystem services and biodiversity values led approach for design and implementation of wetlands conservation programmesare significantandmultiscalar.investment is required to broaden dimensions of wetland research, in particular building a better understanding of the criticality of ecosystem processes (particularly hydrological processes), which underpin delivery of ecosystem services. Ecosystem services need to be built into the existing inventory and assessment protocols. Criteria for designating wetlands of national and international importance need to be broadened, from consideration of biodiversity values to include ecosystem services as well. Management planning for the prioritized wetlands should consider ecosystemservices relatedobjectiveswhiledefiningobjectivesand implementationstrategies.The interaction of ecosystem services with livelihood capitals also needs to be addressed with special focus on equity and social fairness related outcomes of wetland management.

Followingare specific recommendations forstakeholders to respond to the values of wetland biodiversity and ecosystem services:

39

A fisher in Loktak Lake, Manipur

WIS

A P

hoto

Lib

rary

40

Lake Chilika, Odisha • implementation of lake basin management should be continued to ensure that biodiversity and ecosystem services values are maintained on long-term basis. Ecosystem services and biodiversity values should be integrated into wetland assessment and monitoring system as one of the indicators of management effectiveness.

• PrimaryFisherCooperativeSocieties shouldbesufficiently capitalizedandcapacitated toensure thatChilikafishersare incentivized for sustainablefisheries.

• Models of community managed ecotourism should be incorporated into wetland management so that communitiesgain livelihoodbenefits fromecologicalrestoration. Such models should form an integral part of wetland management plan, soas toensure that thebenefitsarenot crowdedoutdue tocompetinginvestments and infrastructure development.

• Experiences of Lake Chilika ecological restoration should be used to promote integrated and adaptive management of other coastal wetlands, such as Pulicat, Ashtamudi and Vembanad-Kol.

Loktak Lake, Manipur • Management of water regimes should take into account ecological needs of wetland functioning. Alternate sources for power should be used during winter season to ensure that ecosystem processes are maintained.

• integrated wetland management should be pursued to ensure that ecosystem services and biodiversity can be maintained on long-term basis.

Kanwar Jheel, Bihar • Management of Kanwar Jheel should aim to restore the hydrological regime to 1980s status, wherein nearly two-thirds of the wetland was inundated for at least 6 months.

• Zoning principles should be used to maximize ecosystem services and biodiversity benefits. Thecoreofwetlandshouldbemaintained forbiodiversity,whereasamixof capturefisheriesandsubsistence levelwetlandagriculture shouldbepermitted in the rest of the wetland to address livelihood needs.

• A management authority may be constituted for restoration with representation of all stakeholders and sectors.

Ousteri, Puducherry • Given thepositivewillingness topay for recreationalbenefits, auser chargemaybe levied to fund wetland management costs.

• Villages located around the wetland should be allowed access to bundle of wetland ecosystem services in return for participation in maintaining wetland biodiversity values.

Little Rann of Kachchh, Gujarat

• Dynamic hydrological regimes which underpin delivery of ecosystem service values of LRK, need to be maintained and integrated in upstream water resources management decisions.

• An optimal mix of livelihood systems (salt manufacturing, prawn farming, tourism) should be assessed to ensure that biodiversity values are maintained.

MangrovesofGujarat • Mangroves should be considered as long-term assets, and not in terms of short-term gains.

• Less costly and participatory methods of mangrove plantation should be preferred foreconomicefficiency.

Managers of pilot study sites

41

RiverKen,UttarPradesh • Impactsof riverflowdiversionondownstreamareas in termsofgroundwaterrecharge, sand,fish, riparianvegetationandwaterqualityneed tobe incorporatedin water management decisions.

• A detailed policy should be formulated to regulate sand extraction based on its annual availability.

• interdependence of forests, wildlife and riverine ecosystems should be incorporated in accounting framework for river ecosystem services.

Wular Lake, Jammu & Kashmir

• Willows should be removed from Wular fringes to restore hydrological functioning of the wetland complex.

• Funds realized from sale of willow wood should be ploughed back into wetland management.

• Willow removal may increase spread of invasive species such as alligator weed and azolla. A strategy to mitigate this threat should be part of the existing management plan.

Ashtamudi Lake, Kerala • Value realization from eco-labelling of clams can be increased substantially if whole clams are marketed and exported instead of current practice of meat processing.

• TheexperiencesofAshtamudi canbe replicated inother small-scalefisheriesandfisherfolkmadeawareofeco-labellingasa tool for resourcemanagement. TheCentral Marine Fisheries Research institute, in tandem with WWF, should identify similar small-scalefisherieswhereineco-labellingmaybe introduced.

• Seafood trade promotion agencies such as The Marine Products Exports Development Authority could take the results of this study to processors and exporters to reap thebenefitsof consumerpreferencesand targetnewmarkets.

National network of wetland managers

• Assess statusand trends inwetlandecosystemservices through use of suitable indicators applied within an integrated wetland inventory, assessment and monitoring system.

• Assesswetlandecosystemservices-livelihoodlinkages while developing site management plans, and include distributional equity related managementobjectiveswithin implementationstrategies.

• Formulate integratedmanagementplansusingdiagnostic approaches for securing full range of ecosystem services and biodiversity values.

• Usevaluationofecosystemservicesandbiodiversity as a tool to communicate role of wetlands in local and regional economies, raise resources, and inform decision-makers on trade-offsassociatedwith implementationofsectoral policies and programmes.

• Whereverpossibleand feasible, integratemarket-based instruments to internalize externalities associated with wetland ecosystem services, and provide incentives for natural resource stewardship.

• Integrate indigenousand local knowledgewithin design and implementation of site management plans.

State level policy makers

• Constitute statewetlandauthoritiesasnodal institutions for coordinating sectoral programmes and ensuring consideration of full range of wetland biodiversity and ecosystem services values in developmental programming.

• Safeguardand restorewetland resources toensure sustained delivery of wetland ecosystem services and biodiversity values.

• Strengthen implementationofNationalBiodiversity Action Plan, particularly on targets related to water and wetlands.

• Introduce textonwetlands, and theirecosystemservices and biodiversity values in school curriculum to enhance awareness.

Academia

• Improve researchonwetland functioninganddelivery of ecosystem services.

• Addressknowledgegapsonvaluesofwetlandecosystem services, particularly related to regulating and cultural services.

• Promotemulti-disciplinary research toassessecosystemservices trade-offs related towetland management.

Development cooperation community

• Integrateappreciationofwetlandbiodiversityand ecosystem service values within developmentcooperationobjectives.

• Buildwetland restorationand integratedmanagement within investment portfolios.

Civil Society organizations

• Understand,demonstrateandcommunicatewetland biodiversity and ecosystem services values.

• Promoteapplicationof integratedapproachesfor safeguarding wetland biodiversity and ecosystem service values.

• Improvestakeholderengagement inwetlandmanagement.

Businesses

• Proactively includewetland restorationwithinCorporate Social Responsibility (CSR) activities.

• Considerdirectand indirect impactsonwetlands within business processes and include adequate sustainability measures.

• Assess risksassociatedwithdirectand indirectimpacts on wetlands and improve disclosures through use of corporate ecosystem valuation tools.

• Reducewater footprint inorder to safeguardwater and wetland resources for posterity.

• Ensure thatwetlandbasedoptionsare fullyconsidered within land and water resources planning and decision-making.

• Conduct systematic inventoryandprioritizerestoration of wetlands with due consideration of ecosystem services and biodiversity values.

• Provideadequatefinancial resourceswithinstate budgets to periodically monitor wetlands and support formulation of integrated management plans.

• Promoteawarenessandoutreachonwetlandecosystem services and biodiversity values.

• Supportachievementofnationalbiodiversitytargets, particularly those related to water and wetlands.

National Wetland Programme

• Build capacityof state-levelpolicymakersandwetland managers in inventorying wetland ecosystem services and biodiversity values and their integration in site management plans.

• Include indicatorsbasedonecosystemservices and biodiversity values for assessing managementeffectiveness.

• Includeassessmentofecosystemservicesvalues within environmental impact assessment protocols related to wetlands, and for developmentalprojects takingplacewithinzoneof influenceofwetlands,especially thoseadversely impacting hydrological regimes.

• Strengthen researchonwetlandecosystemservices, particularly on regulating services

• Promote integrationofwetlandecosystemservices values within national policies and sectoral developmental programming (related to water management, agriculture, fisheriesandaquaculture, rural andurbandevelopment, disaster management, health and others).

• Introduceguidelines for recognizingwetlandsas a distinct land use category in land use classificationsystems, and in collaborationwith state governments ensure that these ecosystems are appropriately demarcated and incorporated within land use records.

42

Akter, S.,Bennett, J. andAkhter, S.,2008.PreferenceUncertaintyin Contingent Valuation. Ecological Economics, 67(3), pp.345–351.

Alfred, J. R. B. and Nandi, N. C., 2000. Faunal Diversity in indian Wetlands. ENViS Newsletter. 6(2).

Alfred, J. R. B., Das, A. K. and Sanyal, A. K. eds., 1998. Faunal Diversity in india. Calcutta: ENViS Centre, Zoological Survey of india.

Anoop,P.,Suryaprakash,S.,Umesh,K.B.andAmjathBabu,T.S.,2008.EconomicValuationofUseBenefitsofAshtamudiEstuary in South india. in: Sengupta, M. and Dalwani, R. eds., 2008. Proceedings of Taal 2007: The 12th World Lake Conference. Jaipur, india, 28 October–2 November 2007. New Delhi: Ministry of Environment and Forests, Government of india. pp. 1822–1826.

Barbier, E. B., 1994. Valuing Environmental Functions: Tropical Wetlands. Land Economics, 70, pp.155–173.

Barbier, E. B., 2009. Ecosystems as Natural Assets. Foundations and Trends in Microeconomics, 4(8), pp.611–681.

Barbier, E. B., Baumgartner, S., Chopra, K., Costello, C., Duraiappah, A.,Hassan,R.,Kinzig,A., Lehman,M., Pascual,U., Polasky,S. and Perrings, C., 2009. The Valuation of Ecosystem Services. in: Naeem, S., Bunker, D. E., Hector, A., Loreau, M. and Perrings, C. eds., 2009. Biodiversity Ecosystem Functioning and Human Wellbeing: An Ecological and Economic Perspective.Oxford:OxfordUniversityPress.Ch.18.

Bhatt, J. R. and Kathiresan, K., 2011. Biodiversity of Mangrove Ecosystems in india. in: Bhatt, J. R., Macintosh, D. J., Nayar, T. S., Pandey, C. N. and Nilaratna, B. P. eds., 2011. Towards Conservation and Management of Mangrove Ecosystems in india.NewDelhi: IUCN India.

Bhatt, J. R., Kumar, R. and Kathiresan, K., 2013. Conservation and Management of Mangroves in india: An Overview. in: Bhatt, J.R.,Ramakrishna,Sanjappa,M.,Remadevi,O.K.,Nilaratna,B. P. and Venkataraman, K. eds., 2013. Mangroves of india: TheirBiologyandUses. Kolkata: Zoological Survey of india.

Blankespoor, B., Dasgupta, S. and Laplante, B., 2012. Sea–level Rise and Coastal Wetlands: impacts and Costs. [Policy Research Working Paper 6277]. Washington, DC: The World Bank.

Brauman, K. A., Daily, G. C., Duarte, T. K. and Mooney, H. A., 2007. The Nature and Value of Ecosystem Services: An Overview Highlighting Hydrologic Services. Annual Review of the Environment and Resources, 32, pp.67–98.

Bromley, D. W. and Paavola, J., 2002. Economics, Ethics and Environmental Policy. in: Bromley, D. W. and Paavola, J. eds., 2002. Economics, Ethics, and Environmental Policy: Contested Choices. Malden, MA: Blackwell. Ch.16.

Central Water Commission (CWC), 2010. Financial Aspects of IrrigationProjects in India. New Delhi: Central Water Commission.

Chandan,P.,Chatterjee,A.,Gautam,P., Seth,C.M., Takpa, J.,Haq,S., Tashi, P. and Vidya, S., 2005. Black–necked Crane–Status, Breeding Productivity and Conservation in Ladakh, india 2000–2004. WWF–india and Department of Wildlife Protection, Government of Jammu and Kashmir.

Chandan,P.,Chatterjee,A. andGautam,P.,2008.ManagementPlanning of Himalayan High Altitude Wetlands: A Case Study of Tsomoriri and Tsokar Wetlands in Ladakh, india. in: Sengupta, M. and Dalwani, R. eds., 2008. Proceedings of Taal 2007: The 12th World Lake Conference. Jaipur, india, 28 October–2 November 2007. New Delhi: Ministry of Environment and Forests, Government of india.

Chopra, K., 1998. The valuation of biodiversity within protected areas: Alternative approaches and case study. New Delhi: institute of Economic Growth.

Convention on Migratory Species (CMS), 2005. Central Asian Flyway Action Plan for Waterbirds and their Habitat. [Country Report–india]. Bonn, Germany: Convention on Migratory Species.

Costanza, R., 1980. Embodied Energy and Economic Valuation. Science, 210, pp.1219–1224.

Costanza, R. ed., 1991. Ecological Economics: The Science and Management of Sustainability. New York: Columbia UniversityPress.

Costanza, R., d’Arge, R., de Groot, R., Farber, S., Grasso, M., Hannon, B., Naeem, S., Limburg, K., Paruelo, J., O’Neill, R. V., Raskin, R., Sutton, P. and van den Belt, M., 1997. The Value of the World’s Ecosystem Services and Natural Capital. Nature, 387, pp.253–260.

Costanza, R. and Folke, C., 1997. Valuing Ecosystem Services with Efficiency, FairnessandSustainabilityasGoals. In:Daily,G. ed., 1997. Nature’s Services: Societal Dependence on Natural Ecosystems. Washington, DC: island Press. pp. 49–70.

Daily, G. ed., 1997. Nature’s Services: Societal Dependence on Natural Ecosystems. Washington, DC: island Press.

Das, S. and Vincent, R. V., 2009. Mangroves Protected Villages and Reduced Death Toll during indian Super Cyclone. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 106(18), pp.7357–7360.

Davidson, N. C., 2014. How much Wetland has the World Lost? Long–term and Recent Trends in Global Wetland Area. Marine and Freshwater Research, 65, pp.934–941.

deGroot,R. S.,1987.Environmental FunctionsasaUnifyingConcept for Ecology and Economics. The Environmentalist, 7(2), pp.105–109.

Dehadrai, P.V. and Yadava, Y.S., 2004. State of indian Farmer: Fisheries Development (Volume -13). New Delhi: Academic Foundation.

Dixit, A. M., Kumar, P., Kumar, L., Pathak, K. and Patel, M. i., 2010. Economic Valuation of Coral Reef Systems in Gulf of Kachchh. [Final Report]. World Bank aided integrated CoastalZoneManagement (ICZM)Project.Gandhinagar:GujaratEcologyCommission.

Dixit, A. M., Kumar, L., Kumar, P. and Pathak, K., 2012. Valuing the Services of Coral Reef Systems for Sustainable Coastal Management: A Case Study of the Gulf of Kachchh, india. in: Kumar, P. and Wood, M. D. eds. Valuation of Regulating Services of Ecosystems: Methodology and Applications. London: Routledge, pp.175–198.

References

43

Ehrlich, P. R. and Ehrlich, A. H., 1981. Extinction: The Causes and Consequences of the Disappearance of Species. New York: Random House.

Ehrlich, P. R. and Mooney, H. A., 1983. Extinction, Substitution, and Ecosystem Services. Biosciences, 33, pp.248–254.

Farber, S. C., Costanza, R. and Wilson, M. A., 2002. Economics and Ecological Concepts for Valuing Ecosystem Services. Ecological Economics, 41(3), pp.375–392.

Finlayson, C. M., Davidson, N., Pritchard, D., Milton, G. R. and MacKay, H., 2011. The Ramsar Convention and Ecosystem–BasedApproaches to theWiseUseandSustainableDevelopment of Wetlands. Journal of international Wildlife Law and Policy, 14(3–4), pp.176–198.

Folke, C., Hammer, M. and Jansson, A. M., 1991. Life–Support Value of Ecosystems: A Case Study of the Baltic Region. Ecological Economics, 3(2), pp.123–137.

Gardner, R. C., Barchiesi, S., Beltrame, C., Finlayson, C. M., Galewski, T., Harrison, i., Paganini, M., Perennou, C., Pritchard, D. E., Rosenqvist, A. and Walpole, M., 2015. State of the World’s Wetlands and their Services to People: A compilation of recent analyses. [RamsarBriefingNoteno.7].Gland,Switzerland: Ramsar Convention Secretariat.

Garg, J. K., 2015. Wetland Assessment, Monitoring and Management in india using Geospatial Techniques.Journal of Environmental Management, 148, pp.112–123.

Garg, J. K., Singh, T. S. and Murthy, T. V. R., 1998. Wetlands of india. [ProjectReport].RSAM/SAC/RESA/PR/01/98.Ahmedabad: Space Application Centre (iSRO). p.239.

Gogoi, R., 2007. Conserving Deepor Beel–Ramsar Site, Assam. Current Science, 93(4), pp.445–446.

Gopal, B., 2013. Future of Wetlands in Tropical and Subtropical Asia, Especially in the Face of Climate Change. Aquatic Sciences, 75, pp.39–61.

Gopi, G. V., Arya, S. and Hussain, S. A., 2014. Waterbirds of india: An introduction. in: Gopi, G. V. and Hussain, S. A. eds., 2014. Waterbirds of india, ENViS Bulletin: Wildlife and Protected Areas, 16. Dehradun: Wildlife institute of india. pp. 10–23.

Guha, i. and Ghosh, S., 2009. A Glimpse of the Tiger: How Much are indians Willing to Pay for it? [SANDEE Working Paper No. 39–09]. Kathmandu, Nepal: South Asian Network for Development and Environmental Economics (SANDEE).

Hirway, i. and Goswami, S., 2007. Valuation of Coastal Resources: TheCaseofMangroves inGujarat.Ahmedabad,Gujarat:Academic Foundation.

Holling, C. S., 1973. Resilience and Stability of Ecological Systems. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematic, 4, pp.1–23.

Hussain,S.A. andBadola,R.,2010.ValuingMangroveBenefits:Contribution of Mangrove Forests to Local Livelihoods in Bhitarkanika Conservation Area, East Coast of india. Wetlands Ecology and Management, 18(3), pp.321–331.

James, A. J. and Murty, M. N., 1998. MeasuringNon–UserBenefitsfrom Cleaning Ganges. [Working Paper E/202/99]. New Delhi: institute of Economic Growth.

James, E. J., 1998. TheWiseUseofVembanadKolWetlandSystem and its Drainage Basins. [Report]. Kerala: Centre for Water Resources Development and Management (CWRDM).

Kathiresan, K. and Thakur, S., 2008. Mangroves for the Future: National Strategy and Action Plan, india. [Revised Draft]. New Delhi: Ministry of Environment and Forests.

Kontoleon, A., Macrory, R. and Swanson, T., 2002. individual Preference–Based Values and Environmental Decision

Making: Should Valuation have its Day in Court? Research in Law and Economics, 20, pp.179–216.

Kumar, P., 2012. Measuring Natural Capital: Accounting of inland Wetland Ecosystems from Selected States of india. Economic and Political Weekly, 47, pp.77–84.

Kumar, P., Babu, C. R., Sharma, S. R., Love, A. and Prasad, L., 2001. Valuation of Ecosystem Services: A Case Study of Yamuna Floodplain in the Corridors of Delhi.Under theWorldBank Aided Environmental Management Capacity Building Programme. New Delhi: Mimeograph, institute of Economic Growth (iEG).

Kumar, R., 2015. integrated Management of Wetland Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (iMWBES) Projectproposalsubmitted toUnitedNationsEnvironmentProgramme.Wetlands international South Asia, New Delhi. (unpublished)

Kumar, R. and Pattnaik, A. K., 2012. Chilika–An integrated Management Planning Framework for Conservation and WiseUse. New Delhi: Wetlands international South Asia and Bhubaneswar: Chilika Development Authority.

Kumar, R., Singh, R. D. and Sharma, K. D., 2005. Water Resources of india. Current Science, 89(5), pp.794–811.

Kundu, N., Pal, M. and Saha, S., 2008. East Kolkata Wetlands: A Resource Recovery System through Productive Activities. in: Sengupta, M. and Dalwani, R. eds., 2008. Proceedings of Taal 2007: The 12th World Lake Conference. Jaipur, india, 28 October–2 November 2007. New Delhi: Ministry of Environment and Forests, Government of india. pp. 868–881.

Mäler, K. G., Aniyar, S. and Jansson, A., 2009. Accounting for Ecosystems. Environmental and Resource Economics, 42, pp.39–51.

Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (MEA), 2005. Ecosystems and Human Well–being: Wetlands and Water Synthesis. Washington, DC: World Resources institute.

Ministry of Environment and Forests (MoEF), 2014. india's Fifth National Report (NR5) to the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD). New Delhi: Ministry of Environment and Forests, Government of india.

MoEFCC & GiZ. 2014. The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity TEEB india initiative: interim Report - Working Document. 96p

MinistryofUrbanDevelopment, (MoUD),2013.Advisory on ConservationandRestorationofWaterBodies inUrbanAreas. New Delhi: Central Public Health and Environmental EngineeringOrganization (CPHEEO),MinistryofUrbanDevelopment, Government of india.

Mitsch, W. J. and Gosselink, J. G., 2000. The Value of Wetlands: importance of Scale and Landscape Setting. [Special issue]. Ecological Economics, 35, pp.25–33.

Mooney, H., Cropper, A. and Reid, W., 2005. Confronting the Human Dilemma: How can Ecosystems provide Sustainable Services tobenefitSociety?Nature, 434, pp.561–562.

North, D. C., 1994. Economic performance through time. American Economic Review, 8(2), pp.359–368.

Odum, H. T., 1996. Environmental Accounting: Energy and Environmental Decision Making. New York: John Wiley, p.370.

Palanisami, K., Meinzen–Dick, R. and Giordano, M., 2010. Climate Change and Water Supplies: Options for Sustaining Tank irrigation Potential in india. Economic & Political Weekly, 45(26–27), pp.183–190.

44

Pandey, J. S., Joseph, V. and Kaul, S. N., 2004. A Zone–Wise Ecological Economic Analysis of indian Wetlands. Environmental Monitoring and Assessment, 98, pp.261–273.

Parikh KS, Ravindranath NH, Murthy iK, Mehra S, Kumar R, James EJ, Vivekanandan E, Mukhopadhyay P. 2012. The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity - india: initial Assessment and Scoping Report. Working Document. GiZ. New Delhi. 157pp.

Prasad, S. N., Ramachandra, T. V., Ahalya, N., Sengupta, T., Kumar, A., Tiwari,A.K.,Vijayan,V. S. andVijayan, L.,2002.Conservation of Wetlands of india–A Review. Tropical Ecology, 43(1), pp.173–186.

Ramsar, 2002. information Sheet on Ramsar Wetlands (RiS): Sasthamkotta Lake. Gland, Switzerland: Ramsar Convention Secretariat.

Randall, A., 1988. What Mainstream Economists have to Say about the Value of Biodiversity. in: Wilson, E. O. ed. Biodiversity. Washington, DC: National Academy Press. pp. 217–223.

Ready, R. C., Whitehead, J. C. and Blomquist, G. C, 1995. Contingent Valuation when Respondents are Ambivalent. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 29, pp.181–196.

Russi, D., ten Brink, P., Farmer, A., Badura, T., Coates, D., Förster, J., Kumar, R. and Davidson, N., 2012. The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity for Water and Wetlands. [Final Consultation Draft].

Sagoff,M.,1994.ShouldPreferencesCount?Land Economics, 70(2), pp.127–144.

Sagoff,M.,2011. TheQuantificationandValuationofEcosystemServices. Ecological Economics, 70, pp.497–502.

Scott, D. A., 1989. A Directory of Asian Wetlands. Gland, Switzerland: IUCN.

Singh, S. P. and Gopal, B., 2002. integrated Management of Water Resources of Lake Nainital and its Watershed: An Environmental Economics Approach. [EERC Working Paper Series: WB–8]. Mumbai: Environmental Economics Research Committee (EERC), indira Gandhi institute for Developmental Research.

Society for Ecological Restoration international Science and Policy Working Group (SER), 2004. The SER international Primer on Ecological Restoration. www.ser.org and Tucson: Society for Ecological Restoration international.

Space Application Centre (SAC), 2011. National Wetland Atlas. SAC/EPSA/ABHG/NWiA/ATLAS/34/2011. Ahmedabad: Space Applications Centre (iSRO). p.310.

Spash, C. L. and Vatn, A., 2006. Transferring Environmental Value Estimates: issues and Alternatives. Ecological Economics, 60, pp.379–388.

Smith,V.K.,VanHoutveen,G. andPattanayaak,S.K.,2002.BenefitTransfer via Preference Calibration: “Prudential algebra” for Policy. Land Economics, 78, pp.132–152.

TEEB, 2010. The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity: Ecological and Economic Foundations. Abingdon and New York: Routledge.

Trisal, C. L. and Kumar, R., 2008. integration of High Altitude Wetlands into River Basin Management in the Hindu Kush Himalayas: Capacity Building Needs Assessment for Policy

and Technical Support. New Delhi: Wetlands international South Asia.

Trisal, C. L., Tabassum, T. and Kumar, R., 2008. Water Quality of the River Yamuna in the Delhi Stretch: Key Determinants and Management issues. Clean, 36(3), pp.306–314.

Vatn, A., 2000. The Environment as a Commodity. Environmental Values, 9, pp.493–509.

Venkatachalam, L. and Jayanthi, M., 2016. Estimating the Economic Value of Ecosystem Services of Pallikaranai Marsh in Chennai City: A Contingent Valuation Approach. [MiDS Working Paper No. 220]. Chennai, india: Madras institute of Development Studies (MiDS)

Verma, M., Bakshi, N. and Nair, R. P. K., 2001. Economic Valuation ofBhojWetlands forSustainableUse. Bhopal: indian institute of Forest Management. UnderWorldBankAided India: EnvironmentalManagementCapacityBuildingTechnicalAssistanceProject.

Vijayan,V. S., Prasad,S.N.,Vijayan, L. andMuralidharan,S.,2004. inland Wetlands of india–Conservation Priorities. Coimbatore: Salim Ali Centre for Ornithology and Natural History.

Walker, B. H., Holling, C. S., Carpenter, S. R. and Kinzig, A. P., 2004. Resilience, Adaptability and Transformability. Ecology and Society, 9(2), p.5.

Wetlands international South Asia (WiSA), 2004. Socio–economic Assessment of Environmental Flow Scenarios of Chilika. [Final Report]. New Delhi: Wetlands international South Asia.

Wetlands international South Asia (WiSA), 2005. Conservation and Management of Loktak and Associated Wetlands integrating Manipur River Basin. [DetailedProjectReport].New Delhi: Wetlands international South Asia.

Wetlands international South Asia (WiSA), 2007. Comprehensive Management Action Plan for Wular Lake, Kashmir. [Final Report]. New Delhi: Wetlands international South Asia.

Wetlands international South Asia (WiSA), 2013. Conservation and Wise use of Vembanad–Kol: An integrated Management Planning Framework. New Delhi: Wetlands international South Asia.

Wetlands international South Asia (WiSA), 2015. Kanwar Jheel: An integrated Management Action Plan for Conservation andWiseUse. New Delhi: Wetlands international South Asia.

World Bank, 2014. Building Resilience for Sustainable Development of the Sunderbans – Strategy Report (Report No.88061–iN). Sustainable Development Department, Environment&WaterResourcesManagementUnit,Washington DC: The World Bank.

Zavestoski, S., 2004. Constructing and Maintaining Ecological identities: The Strategies of Deep Ecologists. in: Clayton, S. and Opotow, S. eds., 2004. identity and the Natural Environment: ThePsychologicalSignificanceofNature. Cambridge, MA: The MiT Press. pp. 297–316.

Zografos, C. and Paavola, J., 2008. Critical Perspectives on Human Action and Deliberative Ecological Economics. in: Zografos, C. and Howarth, R. B. eds. Deliberative ecological economics.Delhi:OxfordUniversityPress.

45

Natural Capital of Wetlands

Ministry of Environment, Forestand Climate ChangeGovernment of India

Wetlands International South Asia

A-25, Second Floor, Defence Colony

New Delhi-110 024, India

Tel: +91-11-24338906, 46038906

Email: wi.southasia@wi-sa.orgURL: http://south-asia.wetlands.org

Wetlands International

@WetlandsInt

Wetlands International

Stay in touch